Univ. 

51 


library 


, I 


.v 


'*4 


1 


\ 


t 


* 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 

u 


https://archive.org/details/notesonmiracleso00tren_0 


NOTES  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


NOTES 


ON  THE 


MIRACLES  OF  OUR  LORD 


BY 


RICHARD  CHENEVIX  TRENCH  M A., 

PEOFESSOB  OF  DIVINITY,  KING’S  COLLEGE,  LONDON;  AUTHOR  OF  “NOTES 
ON  THE  PARABLES  OF  OUR  LORD,”  ETC.,  ETC. 


Setonii  %mxim  from  ttie  last  ©ttglisj)  (Etta. 


NEW- YORK: 

D.  APPLETON  & COMPANY, 

846  & 348  BROADWAY. 

M.DOCO.LIX, 


■* 


CONTENTS. 


PRELIMINARY  ESSAY. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I Oil  the  Names  of  the  Miracles ........ . 9 

II.  The  Miracles  and  Nature < 16 

III.  The  Authority  of  the  Miracle 25 

IY.  The  Evangelical,  compared  with  other  Cycles  of  Miracles 34 

V.  The  Assaults  on  the  Miracles 53 

YI.  The  Apologetic  Worth  of  the  Miracles 75 


MIRACLES. 


ip 


1.  The  Water  made  Wine ; 

2.  The  Healing  of  the  Nobleman’s  Son 

3.  The  First  Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes 

4.  The  Stilling  of  the  Tempest 

5.  The  Demoniacs  in  the  Country  of  the  Gadarenes  . 

6.  The  Raising  of  Jairus’s  Daughter 

7.  The  Woman  with  an  Issue  of  Blood 

8.  The  Opening  the  Eyes  of  Two  Blind  in  the  House 

9.  The  Healing  of  the  Paralytic 

1C.  The  Cleansing  of  the  Leper 

11.  The  Healing  of  the  Centurion’s  Servant 

12.  The  Demoniac  in  the  Synagogue  of  Capernaum  . . 

13.  The  Healing  of  Simon’s  Wife’s  Mother 

14.  The  Raising  of  the  Widow’s  Son 


83 

106 

119 

125 

147 

154 

160 

163 

173 

183 

189 

192 

196 


8 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

15.  The  Healing  of  the  Impotent  Man  at  Bethesda 199 

16.  The  Miraculous  Feeding  of  Five  Thousand 213 

17.  The  Walking  on  the  Sea 223 

18.  The  Opening  the  Eyes  of  one  Born  Blind 233 

19.  The  Restoring  of  the  Man  with  a Withered  Hand 250 

20.  The  Woman  with  a Spirit  of  Infirmity 259 

21.  The  Healing  of  the  Man  with  a Dropsy 263 

22.  The  Cleansing  of  the  Ten  Lepers 266 

23.  The  Healing  of  the  Daughter  of  the  Syrophenician  Woman 2*72 

24.  The  Healing  of  one  Deaf  and  Dumb 280 

25.  The  Miraculous  Feeding  of  Four  Thousand 285 

26.  The  Opening  the  Eyes  of  one  Blind  at  Bethsaida 288 

27.  The  Healing  of  the  Lunatic  Child 291 

28.  The  Stater  in  the  Fish’s  Mouth 299 

29.  The  Raising  of  Lazarus 312 

30.  The  Opening  the  Eyes  of  Two  Blind  Men  near  Jericho 341 

31.  The  Withering  of  the  Fruitless  Fig-Tree 347 

32.  The  Healing  of  Malchus’s  Ear 356 

83  The  Second  Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes 361 


PRELIMINARY  ESSAY, 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

Every  discussion  about  a thing  will* best  proceed  from  an  investigation 
of  the  name  or  names  which  it  bears;  for  the  name  ever  seizes  and 
presents  the  most  distinctive  features  of  the  thing,  embodying  them  for 
us  in  a word.  In  the  name  we  have  the  true  declaration  of  the  inner- 
most nature  of  the  thing ; we  have  a witness  to  that  which  the  universal 
sense  of  men,  finding  its  utterance  in  language,  has  ever  felt  thus  to 
lie  at  its  heart ; and  if  we  would  learn  to  know  the  thing,  we  must  start 
with  seeking  accurately  to  know  the  name  which  it  bears.  In  the 
discussion  upon  which  now  we  are  entering,  the  names  are  manifold; 
for  it  is  a consequence  of  this,  that,  where  we  have  to  do  with  any  thing 
which  in  many  ways  is  significant,  that  will  have  inevitably  many 
names,  since  no  one  will  exhaust  its  meaning.  Each  of  these  will 
embody  a portion  of  its  essential  qualities,  will  present  it  upon  a single 
side ; and  not  from  the  exclusive  contemplation  of  any  one,  but  only  of 
these  altogether,  will  any  adequate  apprehension  of  that  which  we 
desire  to  know  be  obtained.  Thus  what  we  commonly  call  miracles, 
are  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  termed  sometimes  “ wonders,”  sometimes 
“ signs,”  sometimes  “ powers,”  sometimes,  simply,  “ works.”  These 
titles  they  have  in  addition  to  some  others  of  rarer  occurrence,  and 
which  easily  range  themselves  under  one  or  other  of  these ; — on  each 
of  which  I would  fain  say  a few  words,  before  attempting  to  make  any 
further  advance  in  the  subject. 


2 


10 


OUST  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


1.  To  take  then  first  the  name  “ wonder  in  which  the  effect  of  as* 
tonishment  which  the  work  produces  upon  the  beholder  is  transferred  to 
the  work  itself,  an  effect  often  graphically  portrayed  by  the  Evangel- 
ists, when  relating  our  Lord’s  miracles,  (Mark  ii.  12 ; iv.  41 ; vi.  51 ; 
viii.  37 ; Acts  iii.  10,  11,)  it  will  at  once  be  felt  that  this  does  but  touch 
the  matter  on  the  outside.  The  ethical  meaning  of  the  miracle  would 
be  wholly  lost,  were  blank  astonishment  or  gaping  wonder  all  which 
they  aroused ; since  the  same  effect  might  be  produced  by  a thousand 
meaner  causes.  Indeed,  it  is  riot  a little  remarkable,  rather  is  it  singu- 
larly characteristic  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  that  this  name 
“ wonders”  is  never  applied  to  them  but  in  connection  with  other  names. 
They  are  continually  “signs  and  wonders,”  or  “signs”  or  “powers” 
alone,  but  never  “ wonders”  alone.  \ Not  that  the  miracle,  considered 
simply  as  a wonder,  as  an  astonishing  event  which  the  beholders  can 
reduce  to  no  law  with  which  they  are  acquainted,  is  even  as  such  without 
its  meaning  and  its  purpose ; that  purpose  being  that  it  should  forcibly 
startle  from  the  mere  dream  of  a sense-bound  existence,  and,  however  it 
may  not  be  itself  an  appeal  to  the  spiritual  in  man,  should  yet  be  a sum- 
mons to  him  that  he  should  open  his  eyes  to  the  spiritual  appeal  which 
is  about  to  be  addressed  to  him. 

2.  But  the  miracle,  besides  being  a “ wonder,”  is  also  a “ signal 

* T spa?.  The  term  davpa,  near  akin  to  repag,  and  one  of  the  commonest  in 
the  Greek  Fathers  to  designate  the  miracles,  never  occurs  in  the  Holy  Scripture ; 
davpaoiov  only  once  ; (Matt.  xxvi.  15 ;)  but  the  6av/ia£eiv  is  often  brought  out  as  a 
consequence.  (Matt.  viii.  27 ; ix.  8,  33 ; ?v.  31,  <&c.)  UapdSo^ov,  which  in  like 
manner  brings  out  the  unexpectedness  of  the  wonder,  and  so  implies,  though  it  does 
not  express,  the  astonishment  which  it  causes — a word  of  frequent  usage  in  ecclesi- 
astical Greek, — is  found  only  Luke  v.  26. 

•{■  It  is  not  satisfactory  that  a word,  which  is  thus  only  the  subordinate  one  iu  the 
Greek,  should  be  the  chief  one  in  our  language  to  designate  these  divine  facts, — that 
the  two  words  almost  exclusively  in  use  among  us,  namely  wonders  and  miracles, 
should  bring  out  only  the  accidental  accompaniment,  the  astonishment  which  the 
work  creates,  and  should  go  so  little  into  the  deeper  meaning  of  the  work  itself. 
The  Latin  miraculum  (which  properly  is  not  a substantive,  but  the  neuter  of  mira- 
culus)  and  the  German  Wunder  lie  exactly  under  the  same  defect. 

£ 2 rj/ielov.  Our  version  is  not  entirely  satisfactory  from  its  lack  of  consistency  m 
rendering  this  word.  There  is  no  reason  why  crjfielov  should  not  always  have  been 
rendered  “sign;”  but  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  with  whom  the  word  is  an  especial 
favorite,  far  oftener  than  not,  “ sign”  gives  place  to  the  vaguer  “ miracle,”  and  this 
sometimes  not  without  injury  to  the  entire  clearness  and  force  of  the  words.  See  for 
instance,  iii.  2 ; vii.  31 ; x.  41 ; and  especially  vi.  26,  where  the  substitution  of  “mira- 
cles” for  “ signs”  is  greatly  injurious  to  the  meaning.  Our  version  makes  Christ  to 
say  to  the  multitude,  which,  after  he  had  once  fed  them  in  the  wilderness,  gathered 


ON  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


11 


a token  and  indication  of  the  near  presence  and  working  of  God.  In 
this  word  the  ethical  end  and  purpose  of  the  miracle  comes  out  the  most 
prominently,  as  in  “ wonder”  the  least.  They  are  signs  and  pledges  of 
something  more  than  arid  beyond  themselves ; (Isaiah  vii.  1 1 ; xxxviii. 
7 ;)*  they  are  valuable,  not  so  much  for  what  they  are,  as  for  what  they 
indicate  of  the  grace  and  power  of  the  doer,  or  of  the  connection  in 
which  he  stands  with  a higher  world.  Oftentimes  they  are  thus  seals 
of  power  set  to  the  person  who  accomplishes  them,  (“  the  Lord  con- 
firming the  word  by  signs  following,”  Mark  xvi.  20 ; Acts  xiv.  3 ; 
Heb.  ii.  4 ;)  legitimating  acts,  by  which  he  claims  to  be  attended  to  as 
a messenger  from  God.f  We  find  the  word  continually  used  in  senses 
such  as  these:  Thus,  “What  sign  showest  thou?”  (John  ii.  18,)  was 
the  question  which  the  Jews  asked,  when  they  wanted  the  Lord  to  jus- 
tify the  things  which  he  was  doing,  by  showing  that  he  had  especial 
authority  to  do  them.  Again  they  say,  “We  would  see  a sign  from 
thee;”  (Matt.  xii.  38;)  “Show  us  a sign  from  heaven.”  (Matt.  xvi. 

round  him  again,  “ Ye  seek  me  not  because. ye  saw  the  miracles,  &c.”  But  rather 
should  it  be,  “Ye  seek  me  not  because  ye  saw  signs,”  (aygela  without  the  article,) 
“ not  because  ye  recognized  in  these  works  of  mine  tokens  and  intimations  of  a higher 
presence,  something  which  led  you  to  conceive  great  thoughts  of  me : they  are  no 
glimpses  of  my  higher  nature,  which  you  have  caught,  and  which  bring  you  here ; 
but  you  come  that  you  may  again  be  filled.”  The  coming  merely  because  they  saw 
miracles,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word — works  that  had  made  them  marvel — the 
coming  with  the  expectation  of  seeing  such  again,  would  have  been  as  much  con- 
demned by  our  Lord  as  the  coming  only  for  the  satisfying  of  their  lowest  earthly 
wants.  (Matt.  xii.  39 ; xvi.  1 — 4.) 

* Basil  upon  this  passage  : “Ecrri  cypelov  re  pay  pa  (pavepov,  KEKpvppevov  nvog  ical 
djiavovg  ev  lavrti  fyv  dr/luxuv  exov-  (Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.)  And  Lampe  is  good 
here  (Comm. in  Joh.,  v.  1,  p.  513):  Designat  san6  aypelov  natura  sua  rem  nontantum 
extraordinariam,  sensusque  pereellentem,  sed  etiam  talem,  quae  in  rei  alterius,  absentis 
licet  et  futurae  signijicationem  atque  adumbrationem  adhibetur,  unde  et  prognostica 
(Matth.  xvi.  3)  et  typi  (Matth.  xii.  39 ; Luc.  xi.  29)  nec  non  sacramenta , quale  est 
illud  circumcisionis,  (Rom.  iv.  11,)  eodem  nomina  in  N.  T.  exprimi  solent.  Aptissim^ 
ergo  hasc  vox  de  miraculis  usurpatur,  ut  indicet,  quod  non  tantum  admirabili  modo 
fuerint  perpetrata,  sed  etiam  sapientissimo  consilio  Dei  ita  directa  atque  ordinata  ut 
fuerint  simul  characteres  Messiae,  ex  quibus  cognoscendus  erat,  sigilla  doctrinae  quam 
proferebat,  et  beneficiorum  gratiae  per  Messiam  jam  praestandae,  nec  non  typi  viarum 
Dei,  earumque  circumstantiarum  per  quas  talia  beneficia  erant  applicanda. 

f The  Latin  monstrum,  whether  we  derive  it  with  Cicero  (De  Divin.,  1.  1,  c.  42  ) 
from  monstro,  or  with  Festus  from  moneo,  (monstrum  — monestrum,)  though  com- 
monly used  as  answering  most  nearly  to  repag,  is  in  truth  by  either  etymology  more 
nearly  related  to  orjpdov.  Thus  Augustine,  who  follows  Cicero’s  derivation  (De  Civ. 
Dei.  L 21,  c.8):  Monstra  sane  dicta  perhibent  a monstrando,  quod  aliquid  signifi- 
cando  demonstrant ; et  ostenta  ab  ostendendo,  et  portenta  a portendendo,  id  est 
praeostendendo,  et  prodigia  quod  porro  dicant,  id  est  futura  praedicant. 


12 


OUST  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


1.)  St.  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  having  “the  signs  of  an  apostle,” 
(2  Cor.  xii.  12,)  in  other  words,  the  tokens  which  should  mark  him  out 
as  such.  Thus,  too,  in  the  Old  Testament,  when  God  sends  Moses  to 
deliver  Israel  he  furnishes  him  with  two  “signs.”  He  warns  him 
that  Pharaoh  will  require  him  to  legitimate  his  mission,  to  produce  his 
credentials  that  he  is  indeed  God’s  ambassador,  and  equips  him  with  the 
powers  which  shall  justify  him  as  such,  which,  in  other  words,  shall  be 
hi,s  “signs.”  (Exod.  vii.  9,  10.)  He  “gave  a sign1'1  to  the  prophet 
whom  he  sent  to  protest  against  the  will-worship  of  Jeroboam.  (1  Kin. 
xiii.  3.)* 

At  the  same  time  it  may  be  as  well  here  to  observe  that  the  “ sign” 
is  not  of  necessity  a miracle,  although  only  as  such  it  has  a place  in 
our  discussion.  Many  a common  matter,  for  instance  any  foretold  co- 
incidence or  event,  may  be  to  a believing  mind  a sign,  a seal  set  to  the 
truth  of  a foregoing  word.  Thus  the  angels  give  to  the  shepherds  for 
“a  sign”  'their  finding  the  child  wrapt  in  the  swaddling  clothes.  (Luke  ii. 
12.)  Samuel  gives  to  Saul  three  “signs”  that  God  has  indeed  appointed 
him  king  over  Israel,  and  only  the  last  of  these  is  linked  with  aught 
supernatural.  (1  Sam.  x.  1 — 9.)  The  prophet  gave  Eli  the  death  of 
his  two  sons  as  “ a sign”  that  his  threatening  word  should  come  true. 
(1  Sam.  ii.  34.)  God  gave  to  Gideon  a sign  in  the  camp  of  the  Midianites 
of  the  victory  which  he  should  win,  (Judg.  vii.  9 — 15,)  though,  it  does 
not  happen  that  the  word  occurs  in  that  narration.f  Or  it  is  possible 

* As  is  natural,  the  word  sometimes  loses  its  special  and  higher  signification,  and 
is  used  simply  as  = repag.  Thus  St.  Luke  (xxiii.  8)  says  of  Herod,  that  he  hoped  to 
have  seen  some  “ sign  ” (prjgeZov)  wrought  by  Christ.  The  last  thing  he  would  have 
desired  would  have  been  a sign  or  indication  of  a present  God ; but  what  he  wanted 
was  some  glaring  feat  which  should  have  set  him  agape — a repag, — or,  more  properly 
yet,  a Oavpa,  in  the  lowest  and  meanest  sense  of  the  word. 

| The  words  repag  and  agpeZov  stand  linked  together,  not  merely  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  frequently  in  the  Old,  (Exod.  vii.  3,  9;  xi.  9;  Deut.  iv.  34;  vi.  22, 
and  often;  Neh.  ix.  10;  Isai.  viii.  18;  xx.  3 ; Dan.  iii.  32;  vi.  27 ; Ps.  lxxxvii.  43  ; 
civ.  27 ; cxxxiv.  9,  LXX,)  and  no  less  in  profane  Greek.  ( Polyb .,  3,  10 ; AElian , V. 
H.,  1 2,  5^  ; Orph.  Argon.,  27  ; Joseph.,  Antiqq.,  xx.  8,  6.)  The  distinction  between 
the  two,  as  though  the  repag  were  the  more  wonderful,  the  crjpeZov  the  less  so, — as 
though  it  would  be  a orjpeZov  to  heal  the  sick,  a repag  to  open  the  blind  eyes,  or  to 
raise  the  dead,  (so  Ammonius,  Cat.  in  Joh.  iv.  48 : repag  earl  to  tz apd  (pvciv,  oiov  to 
dvoZtjai  ocpdalpovg  rvty'X&v  Kal  kyelpai  venpov'  orjpeZov  6e  to  ovk  Trig  (pvoeug,  oiov 
hcTLV  laoaodac  afifiuarov,)  is  quite  untenable,  however  frequently  it  may  occur  among 
the  Greek  Fathers.  (See  Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.  crjpelov)  Rather  the  same  miracle  is 
upon  one  side  a repag,  on  another  a orgieZov , and  the  words  most  often  refer  not  to 
different  classes  of  miracles,  but  to  different  qualities  in  the  same  miracles ; in  the 
words  of  Lampe  {Comm,  in  Joh.,  v.  1,  p.  513) : Eadem  enim  miracula  dici  possunt 
ngna,  quatenus  aliquid  seu  occultum  seu  futurum  docent ; et  prodigia  [repaid)  qua- 


OX  THE  XAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


1 * 
I u 


for  a man,  under  a strong  conviction  that  the  hand  of  God  is  leading 
him,  to  set  such  and  such  a contingent  event  as  a sign  to  himself,  the 
falling  out  of  which  in  this  way  or  in  that  he  will  accept  as  an  intima- 
tion from  God  of  what  he  would  have  him  to  do.  Examples  of  this 
also  are  not  uncommon  in  Scripture.  (Gen.  xxiv.  16 ; Judg.  vi.  36 — 40; 
1 Sam.  xiv.  8 — 13.) 

3.  Frequently,  also,  the  miracles  are  styled  “powers,”  or  “mighty 
works”  that  is,  of  God.*  As  in  the  term  “ wonder”  or  “ miracle,” 
the  effect  is  transferred  and  gives  a name  to  the  cause,  so  here  the  cause 
gives  its  name  to  the  effect,  f The  “power”  dwells  originally  in  the 
divine  Messenger,  (Acts  vi.  8 ; x.  38 ; Rom.  xv.  9 ;)  is  one  with  which 
he  is  himself  equipped  of  God.  Christ  is  thus  in  the  highest  sense  that 
which  Simon  blasphemously  suffered  himself  to  be  named,  “ The  great 
Power  of  God.”  (Acts  viii.  10.)  But  then  by  an  easy  transition  the 
word  comes  to  signify  the  exertions  and  separate  puttings  forth  of  this 
power.  These  are  “ powers”  in  the  plural,  although  the  same  word  is 
now  translated  in  our  version,  “ wonderful  works,”  (Matt.  vii.  22,)  and 
now,  “mighty  works,”  (Matt.  xi.  20;  Mark  vi.  14;  Luke  x.  13,)  and 
still  more  frequently,  “miracles,”  (Acts  ii.  22;  xix.  11 ; 1 Cor.  xii.  10, 
28 ; Gal.  iii.  5 ;)  in  this  last  case  giving  sometimes  such  tautologies  as 
this,  “ miracles  and  wonders ;”  (Acts  ii.  22 ; Heb.  ii.  4 ;)  and  always 
causing  to  be  lost  something  of  the  express  “force  of  the  word, — how  it 
points  to  new  powers  which  have  come  into,  and  are  working  in,  this 
world  of  ours. 

These  three  terms,  of  which  we  have  hitherto  sought  to  unfold  the 
meaning,  occur  thrice  together,  (Acts  ii.  22 ; 2 Cor.  xii.  12 ; 2 Thess. 
ii.  9,)  although  each  time  in  a different  order.  They  are  all,  as  has  al- 
ready been  noted  in  the  case  of  two  of  them,  rather  descriptive  of  differ- 
ent sides  of  the  same  works,  than  themselves  different  classes  of  works 

tenus  aliquid  extraordinarium,  quod  stuporem  excitat,  sistunt.  Hinc  sequitur  sig 
norum  notionem  latius  patere,  quam  prodigiorum.  Omnia  prodigia  sunt  signa,  quia 
in  ilium  usum  a Deo  dispensata,  ut  arcanum  indicent.  Sed  omnia  signa  non  sunt 
prodigia,  quia  ad  signandum  res  coslestes  aliquando  etiam  res  communes  adhibentur. 
Compare  2 Chron.  xxxii.  24,  31 ; where  at  ver.  24  that  is  called  a cij/zelov,  which  at 
ver.  31  is  a ripag  (LXX). 

* Avvayeig  = virtutes. 

% "With  this  etjovoia  is  related,  which  yet  only  once  occurs  to  designate  a miracle. 
They  are  termed  £vdo!;a,  (Luke  xiii.  17,)  as  being  works  in  which  the  dotja  of  God 
came  eminently  out,  (see  John  ii.  11 ; xi.  40,)  and  which  in  return  caused  men  tc 
glorify  him.  (Mark  ii.  12.)  They  are  yeyaXela  — magnalia,  (Luke  i.  49,)  as  out- 
comings  of  the  greatness  of  God’s  power. 


14 


ON  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 


An  example  of  one  of  our  Lord’s  miracles  may  show  how  it  may  at  once 
be  all  these.  The  healing  of  the  paralytic,  for  example,  (Mark  ii.  1 — 
12,)  was  a wonder , for  they  who  beheld  it  “ were  ail  amazed  it  was  a 
power,  for  the  man  at  Christ’s  word  “ arose,  took  up  his  bed,  and  went 
out  before  them  all it  was  a sign , for  it  gave  token  that  one  greater 
than  men  deemed  was  among  them ; it  stood  in  connection  with  a higher 
fact,  of  which  it  was  the  sign  and  seal,  (cf.  1 Kin.  xiii.  3;  2 Kin.  i.  10;) 
being  wrought  that  they  might  “ know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power 
on  earth  to  forgive  sins.”  * * * § 

4.  A further  term  by  which  St.  John  very  frequently  names  the 
miracles  is  eminently  significant.  They  are  very  often  with  him  simply 
“ works” f (v.  36;  vii.  21 ; x.  25,  32,  38;  xiv.  11,  12;  xv.  24 ; see  also 
Matt.  xi.  2.)  The  wonderful  is  in  his  eyes  only  the  natural  form  of 
working  for  him  who  is  dwelt  in  by  all  the  fulness  of  God ; he  must,  out 
of  the  necessity  of  his  higher  being,  bring  forth  these  works  greater  than 
man’s.  They  are  the  periphery  of  that  circle  whereof  he  is  the  centre. 
The  great  miracle  is  the  Incarnation ; all  else,  so  to  speak,  follows  natu- 
rally and  of  course.  It  is  no  wonder  that  he  whose  name  is  “ Wonder- 
ful,” (Isaiah  ix.  6,)  does  works  of  wonder;  the  only  wonder  would  be 
if  he  did  them  not.  J The  sun  in  the  heavens  is  itself  a wonder,  but  not 
that,  being  what  it  is,  it  rays  forth  its  effluences  of  light-  and  heat.  These 
miracles  are  the  fruit  after -its  kind,  which  the  divine  tree  brings  forth;- 
and  may,  with  a deep  truth,  be  styled  “ works”§  of  Christ,  with  no  fur- 
ther addition  or  explanation.! 

* Pelt’s  definition  (Comm,  in  Thess.,  p.  179,)  is  brief  and  good:  Parum  differunt 
tria  ista  dwageig,  aypela,  repara.  Avvagu ; numero  singulari  tamen  est  vis  miraculo- 
rum  edendorum ; ogpcla  quatenus  comprobandse  inserviunt  doctrine  sive  missioni 
divinse : repara  portenta  sunt,  quae  admirationeni  et  stuporem  excitant. 

f The  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  are  called  epya,  Heb.  iii.  9 ; Ps.  xciv.  9,  LXX. 

f;  Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh. , Tract.  17) : Mirum  non  esse  debet  a Deo  factum  mira- 
culum. . . .Magis  gaudere  et  admirari  debemus  quia  Dominus  noster  et  Salvator 
Jesus  Christus  homo  factus  est,  quam  quod  divina  inter  homines  Deus  fecit. 

§ I aK  aware  that  this  interpretation  of  epya,  as  used  by  St.  John,  has  sometimes 
been  called  in  question,  and  that  by  this  word  has  been  understood  the  sum  total  of 
his  acts  and  his  teachings,  his  words  and  his  works,  as  they  came  under  the  eyes  of 
men ; not  indeed  excluding  the  miracles,  but  including  also  very  much  besides ; yet 
I cannot  doubt  that  our  Lord,  using  this  word,  means  his  miracles,  and  only  them. 
The  one'  passage  brought  with  any  apparent  force  against  this  meaning,  (John  xvii.  4,) 
does  not  really  belong  to  the  question.  For  that  epyov  in  the  singular , may,  and 
here  does,  signify  his  whole  work  and  task,  is  beyond  all  doubt ; but  that  in  the  plu- 
ral the  word  means  his  miracles,  the  following  passages,  v.  36  ; x.  25,  32,  38  ; xiv.  11 
to  which  others  might  be  added,  seem  to  me  decisively  to  prove. 

| "With  regard  to  the  verbs  connected  with  these  nouns,  we  may  observe  in  the 


ON  THE  NAMES  OE  THE  MIRACLES. 


15 


three  first  Evangelists,  orj/iEla  didovat,  (Matt.  xii.  39  ; xxiv.  24 ; Mark  viii.  12,)  and  still 
more  frequently  dwa/ueig  ttolelv.  (Matt.  vii.  22  ; xiii.  58  ; Mark  ix.  £9,  (fee.)  Neither 
of  these  phrases  occurs  in  St.  John,  but  GrjfiEla  ttolelv  continually,  (ii.  11 ; iii.  2 ; iv. 
54,  <fec.,)  which  is  altogether  wanting  in  the  earlier  Evangelists  ; occurring,  however, 
in  the  Acts,  (vii.  36  ; xv.  22,)  and  in  Revelations  (xiii.  13  ; xix.  20).  Once  St.  John 
has  cij/iEla  6elkvvelv  (ii,  18). 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATURE. 

Wherein,  it  may  be  asked,  does  the  miracle  differ  from  any  step  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature?  For  that  too  is  wonderful;  the  fact  that  it 
is  a marvel  of  continual  recurrence  may  rob  it,  subjectively,  of  our  ad 
miration ; we  may  be  content  to  look  at  it  with  a dull  incurious  eye,  ana 
to  think  we  find  in  its  constant  repetition  the  explanation  of  its  law,  even 
as  we  often  find  in  this  a reason  for  excusing  ourselves  altogether  from 
wonder  and  reverent  admiration  ;*  yet  it  does  not  remain  the  less  a mar- 
vel still. 

To  this  question  it  has  been  replied  by  some,  that  since  all  is  thus 
marvellous,  since  the  grass  growing,  the  seed  springing,  the  sun  rising, 
are  as  much  the  result  of  powers  which  we  cannot  trace  or  measure,  as  the 
water  made  wine,  or  the  sick  healed,  or  the  blind  restored  to  vision,  there 
is  therefore  no  such  thing  as  a miracle  eminently  so  called.  We  have  no 
right,  they  say,  in  the  mighty  and  complex  miracle  of  nature  which  en- 
circles us  on  every  side,  to  separate  off  in  this  arbitrary  manner  some 
certain  facts,  and  to  say  that  this  and  that  are  wonders,  and  all  the  rest 
ordinary  processes  of  nature ; but  that  rather  we  must  confine  ourselves 
to  one  language  or  the  other,  and  entitle  all  or  nothing  miracle. 

But  this,  however  at  first  sight  it  may  seem  very  deep  and  true,  is 
indeed  most  shallow  and  fallacious.  There  is  quite  enough  in  itself  and 
in  its  purposes  to  distinguish  that  which  we  name  by  this  name  from  all 
with  which  it  is  thus  attempted  to  be  confounded,  and  in  which  to  be  lost. 
The  distinction  indeed  which  is  sometimes  made,  that  in  the  miracle  God 
is  immediately  working,  and  in  other  events  is  leaving  it  to  the  laws 
which  he  has  established,  to  work,  cannot  at  all  be  admitted : for  it  has 
its  root  in  a dead  mechanical  view  of  the  universe  which  lies  altogether 

* See  Augustine,  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.,  1.  12,  c.  18 ; and  Gregory  the  Great  (Horn*  26, 
in  Evang)\  Quotidiana Dei  miracula  ex  assiduitate  viluerunt. 


THE  MIEACLES  AND  NATURE. 


17 


remote  from  the  truth.  The  clock-maker  makes  his  clock  and  leaves  it ; 
the  ship-builder  builds  and  launches  his  ship,  and  others  navigate  it ; but 
the  world  is  no  curious  piece  of  mechanism  which  its  Maker  makes  and 
then  dismisses  from,  his  hands,  only  from  time  to  time  reviewing  and  re- 
pairing it ; but  as  our  Lord  says,  “ My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work (John  v.  17 ;)  he  “ upholdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power.”*  (Heb.  i.  3.)  And  to  speak  of  “laws  of  God,”  “laws  of  na- 
ture,” may  become  to  us  a language  altogether  deceptive,  and  hiding 
the  deeper  reality  from  our  eyes.  Laws  of  God  exist  only  for  us.  It  is 
a will  of  God  for  himself.  That  will  indeed,  being  the  will  of  highest 
wisdom  and  love,  excludes  all  wilfulness — is  a will  upon  which  we  can 
securely  count ; from  the  past  expressions  of  it  we  can  presume  its  fu- 
ture, and  so  we  rightfully  call  it  a law.  But  still  from  moment  to  mo- 
ment it  is  a will ; each  law,  as  we  term  it,  of  nature  is  only  that  which 
we  have  learned  concerning  this  will  in  that  particular  region  of  its  ac- 
tivity. To  say  then  that  there  is  more  of  the  will  of  God  in  a miracle 
than  in  any  other  work  of  his,  is  insufficient.  Such  an  affirmation  grows 
out  of  that  lifeless  scheme  of  the  world,  of  which  we  should  ever  be  seek- 
ing to  rid  ourselves,  but  which  such  a theory  will  only  help  to  confirm 
and  to  uphold. 

For  while  we  deny  the  conclusion,  that  since  all  is  wonder,  therefore 
the  miracle  commonly  so  called  is  in  no  other  way  than  the  ordinary 
processes  of  nature,  the  manifestation  of  the  presence  and  power  of  God, 
we  must  not  with  this  deny  the  truth  which  lies  in  this  statement.  All 
is  wonder ; to  make  a man  is  at  least  as  great  a marvel  as  to  raise  a 
man  from  the  dead.  The  seed  that  multiplies  in  the  furrow  is  as  mar- 
vellous as  the  bread  that  multiplied  in  Christ’s  hands.  The  miracle  is 
not  a greater  manifestation  of  God’s  power  than  those  ordinary  and  ever- 
repeated  processes;  but  it  is  a differ ent\  manifestation.  By  those  other 

* Augustine  : Sunt  qui  arbitrantur  tantummodo  mundum  ipsum  factum  a Deo- 
cetera  jam  fieri  ab  ipso  mundo,  sicut  ille  ordinavit  et  jussit,  Deum  autem  ipsum  nihil 
operari.  Contra  quos  profertur  ilia  sententia  Domini,  Pater  meus  usque  adhuc  opera- 
tur,  et  ego  opero/. . . .Neque  enim,  sicut  a structure,  tedium,  cum  fabricaverit  q.uis,  ab- 
scedit ; atque  illo  cessante  et  absente  stat  opus  ejus ; ita  mundus  vel  ictu  oculi  stare 
pocerit,  si  ei  Deu3  regimen  suum  subtraxerit.  So  Melancthon  {In  loe.  de  Creatione) : 
Infirmitas  humana  etiamsi  cogitat  Deum  esse  conditorem,  tamen  postea  imaginatur, 
ut  faber  discedit  a navi  exstructa  et  relinquit  earn  nautis ; ita  Deum  discedere  a suo 
opere,  et  relinqui  creaturas  tantum  proprite  gubernationi ; hsec  imaginatio  magnam 
caliginem  offundit  animis  et  parit  dubitationes. 

■\  Augustine  {Serm.  242,  c.  1) : In  homini  carnali  tota  regula  intelligendi  est  con- 

saetudo  cemendi.  Quod  solent  videre  credunt : quod  non  solent,  non  credunt 

M&jora  quidem  miracula  sunt,  tot  quotidie  homines  nasci  qui  non  erant,  quam  paucos 
resurrexisse  qui  erant : et  tamen  ista  miracula  non  consideratione  comprehensa  sunt, 
sed  assiduitate  viluerunt.  q 


18 


THE  MIRACLES  AHD  NATURE. 


God  is  speaking  at  all  times  and  to  all  the  world ; they  are  a vast  reve- 
lation of  him.  “ The  invisible  things  of  him  are  clearly  seen,  being  un- 
derstood by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head.” (Rom.  i.  20.)  Yet  from  the  very  circumstance  that  nature  is 
thus  speaking  unto  all,  that  this  speaking  is  diffused  over  all  time,  ad- 
dressed unto  all  men,  from  the  very  vastness  and  universality  of  this 
language,  it  may  miss  its  aim.  It  cannot  be  said  to  stand  in  nearer  re- 
lation to  one  man  than  to  another,  to  confirm  one  man’s  word  more  than 
that  of  others,  to  address  one  man’s  conscience  more  than  that  of  every 
other  man.  However  it  may  sometimes  have,  it  must  often  lack,  a pe- 
culiar and  personal  significance.  But  in  the  miracle  wrought  in  the 
sight  of  some  certain  men,  and  claiming  their  special  attention,  there  is 
a speaking  to  them  in  particular.  There  is  then  a voice  in  nature  which 
addresses  itself  directly  to  them,  a singling  of  them  out  from  the  crowd. 
It  is  plain  that  God  has  now  a peculiar  word  which  they  are  to  give 
heed  to,  a message  to  which  he  is  bidding  them  to  listen.* 

An  extraordinary  divine  causality  belongs,  then,  to  the  essence  of  the 
miracle ; more  than  that  ordinary,  which  we  acknowledge  in  every 
thing ; powers  of  God  other  than  those  which  have  always  been  work- 
ing; such,  indeed,  as  most  seldom  or  never  have  been  working  until 
now.  The  unresting  activity  of  God,  which  at  other  times  hides  and 
conceals  itself  behind  the  veil  of  what  we  term  natural  laws,  does  in  the 
miracle  unveil  itself;  it  steps  out  from  its  concealment,  and  the  hand 
which  works  is  laid  bare.  Beside  and  beyondf  the  ordinary  operations  of 
nature,  higher  powers,  (higher,  not  as  coming  from  a higher  source,  but 
as  bearing  upon  higher  ends,)  intrude  and  make  themselves  felt  even  at 
the  very  springs  and  sources  of  her  power. 

Yet  when  we  say  that  it  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  miracle  that  it 
should  be  thus  “ a new  thing,”  it  is  not  with  this  denied  that  the  natural 
itself  may  become  miraculous  to  us  by  the  way  in  which  it  is  timed,  by 

* All  this  is  brought  out  in  a very  instructive  discussion  on  the  miracle,  which  finds 
place  in  Augustine’s  great  dogmatic  work,  De  Trinit.,  1.  8,  c.  5,  and  extends  to  the 
chapters  upon  either  side,  being  the  largest  statement  of  his  views  upon  the  subject 
which  any  where  finds  place  in  his  works : Quis  attrahit  humorem  per  radicem  vitis  ad 
botrum  et  vinum  facit,  nisi  Deus  qui  et  homine  plantante  et  rigante  incrementum  dat  ? 
Sed  cum  ad  nutum  Domini  aqua  in  vinum  inusitata  celeritate  conversa  est,  etiam  stultis 
fatentibus,  vis  divina  declarata  est.  Quis  arbusta  fronde  et  flore  vestit  solemniter,  nisi 
Deus?  Verum  cum  floruit  virga  sacerdotis  Aaron,  collocuta  est  quodam  modo  cum 

dubitante  humanitate  divinitas Cum  fiunt  ilia  continuato  quasi  quodam  fluvio 

labentium  manantiumque  rerum,  et  ex  occulto,  in  promptum,  atque  ex  prompto  in 
occultum,  usitato  itinere  transeuntium,  naturalia  dicuntur : cum  vero  admonendis 
hominibus  inusitata  mutabilitate  ingeruntur,  magnalia  nominantur. 

f Not,  as  we  shall  see  the  greatest  theologians  have  always  earnestly  contended, 
contra  naturam,  but  prceter  naturam,  and  supra  naturam. 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  MATURE. 


19 


the  ends  which  it  is  made  to  serve.  It  is  indeed  true  that  aught  which 
is  perfectly  explicable  from  the  course  of  nature  and  history,  is  assuredly 
no  miracle  in  the  most  proper  sense  of  the  word.  Yet  still  the  finger  of 
God  may  be  so  plainly  discernible  in  it,  there  may  be  in  it  so  remark- 
able a convergence  of  many  unconnected  causes  to  a single  end,  it  may 
so  meet  a crisis  in  the  lives  of  men,  or  in  the  onward  march  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  may  stand  in  such  noticeable  relation  with  God’s  great 
work  of  redemption,  that  even  while  it  is  plainly  deducible  from  natural 
causes,  while  there  were  such  perfectly  adequate  to  produce  the  effects, 
we  yet  may  be  entirely  justified  in  terming  it  a miracle,  a providential, 
although  not  an  absolute,  miracle.  Absolute  it  cannot  be  called,  since 
there  were  known  causes  perfectly  capable  of  bringing  it  about,  and, 
these  existing,  it  would  be  superstition  to  betake  ourselves  to  others,  or 
to  seek  to  break  it  loose  from  these.  Yet  the  natural  lifts  itself  up  into 
the  miraculous,  by  the  moment  at  which  it  falls  out,  by  the  purposes 
which  it  is  made  to  fulfil.  It  is  a subjective  wonder,  a wonder  for  us , 
though  not  an  objective,  not  a wonder  in  itself. 

Thus  many  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  were  the  natural  plagues  of  the 
land,* — these,  it  is  true,  raised  into  far  direr  than  their  usual  activity. 
But  in  itself  it  was  nothing  miraculous  that  grievous  swarms  of  flies 
should  infest  the  houses  of  the  Egyptians,  or  that  flights  of  locusts 
should  spoil  their  fields,  or  that  a murrain  should  destroy  their  cattle. 
None  of  these  visitations  were  or  are  unknown  in  that  land : but  the 
intensity  of  all  these  plagues,  the  manner  in  which  they  followed  hard 
on  one  another,  their  connection  with  the  word  of  Moses  which  went 
before,  with  Pharaoh’s  trial  which  was  proceeding,  with  Israel’s  deli- 
verance which  they  helped  onward,  the  manner  of  their  coming  and 
going,  all  these  do  entirely  justify  us  in  calling  them  “ the  signs  and 
wonders  of  Egypt,”  even  as  such  is  the  Scriptural  language  about 
them.  (Ps.  lxxviii.  43 ; Acts  vii.  36.)  It  is  no  absolute  miracle  to 
find  a coin  in  a fish’s  mouth,  (Matt.  xvii.  27,)  or  that  a lion  should  meet 
a man  and  slay  him,  (1  Kin.  xiii.  24,)  or  that  a thunder  storm  should 
happen  at  an  unusual  period  of  the  year ; (1  Sam.  xii.  16 — 19  ;)  and 
yet  these  circumstances  may  be  so  timed  for  strengthening  faith,  for 
punishing  disobedience,  for  awakening  repentance,  they  may  serve  such 
high  purposes  in  God’s  moral  government,  that  we  at  once  range  them 
in  the  catalogue  of  miracles,  without  seeking  to  make  an  anxious  dis- 
crimination between  the  miracle  absolute  and  providential. f Especially 


* See  Hengstenberg,  Die  Bucher  Moses und JEgypten,  pp.  93 — 129. 
t The  attempt  to  exhaust  the  history  of  our  Lord’s  life  of  miracles  by  the  suppo- 
sition of  wonderful  fortuitous  coincidences  is  singularlv  self-defeating.  These  might 


20 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATURE. 


have  they  a right  to  their  place  among  these,  when  (as  in  each  of  the 
instances  alluded  to  above)  the  final  event  is  a sealing  of  a foregoing 
word  from  the  Lord ; for  so,  as  prophecy,  as  miracles  of  his  foreknow- 
ledge, they  claim  that  place,  even  if  not  as  miracles  of  his  power.  Of 
course,  concerning  these  more  than  any  other  it  will  be  true  that  they 
exist  only  for  the  religious  mind,  for  the  man  who  believes  that  God 
ruleth,  and  not  merely  in  power,  but  in  wisdom,  in  righteousness,  and 
in  love;  for  him  they  will  be  eminently  signs,  signs  of  a present 
working  God.  In  the  case  of  the  more  absolute  miracle  it  will  be 
sometimes  possible  to  extort  from  the  ungodly,  as  of  old  from  the  magi- 
cians of  Egypt,  the  unwilling  confession,  “ This  is  the  finger  of  God,” 
(Exod.  viii.  19;)  but  in  the  case  of  these  this  will  be  well  nigh  impos- 
sible ; since  there  is  always  the  natural  solution  in  which  they  may  take 
refuge,  beyond  which  they  will  refuse,  and  beyond  which  it  will  be. 
impossible  to  compel  them,  to  proceed. 

But  while  the  miracle  is  not  thus  nature,  so  neither  is  it  against 
nature.  That  language,  however  commonly  in  use,  is  yet  wholly  un- 
satisfactory, which  speaks  of  these  wonderful  works  of  God  as  violations 
of  a natural  law.  Beyond  nature,  beyond  and  above  the  nature  which 
we  know,  they  are,  but  not  contrary  to  it.  Nor  let  it  be  said  that  this 
distinction  is  an  idle  one ; so  far  from  being  so,  Spinoza’s  whole  assault 
upon  the  miracles,  (not  his  objections,  for  they  lie  much  deeper,  but  his 
assault,*)  turns  upon  the  advantage  which  he  has  known  how  to  take  of 
this  faulty  statement  of  the  truth,  and,  that  being  stated  rightly,  it  be- 
comes at  once  beside  the  mark.  The  miracle  is  not  thus  unnatural, 
nor  can  it  be ; since  the  unnatural,  the  contrary  to  order,  is  of  itself  the 
ungodly,  and  can  in  no  way  therefore  be  affirmed  of  a divine  wrork 
such  as  that  with  which  we  have  to  do.  The  very  idea  of  the  world, 
as  more  than  one  name  which  it  bears  testifies,  is  that  of  an  order  ; that 
which  comes  in  then  to  enable  it  to  realize  this  idea  which  it  has  lost, 
will  scarcely  itself  be  a disorder.  So  far  from  this,  the  true  miracle  is 
a higher  and  a purer  nature,  coming  down  out  of  the  world  of  un- 
troubled harmonies  into  this  world  of  ours,  which  so  many  discords  have 
jarred  and  disturbed,  and  bringing  this  back  again,  though  it  be  but  for 

do  for  once  or  twice ; but  that  such  happy  chances  should  on  every  occasion  recur, 
what  is  this  for  one  who  knows  even  but  a little  of  the  theory  of  probabilities?  not 
the  delivering  the  history  of  its  marvellous  element,  but  the  exchanging  one  set  of 
marvels  for  another.  If  it  be  said  that  this  was  not  mere  hazard,  what  manner  of 
person  then  must  we  conclude  him  to  be,  whom  nature  was  always  thus  at  such 
pains  to  serve  and  to  seal  ? 

* Tract.  Theol.  PoL  c.  6,  Be  Miraculis. 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATTJEE. 


21 


one  prophetic  moment,  into  harmony  with  that  higher.*  The  healing  of 
the  sick  can  in  no  way  be  termed  against  nature,  seeing  that  the  sickness 
which  was  healed  was  against  the  true  nature  of  man — that  it  is  sick- 
ness which  is  abnormal,  and  not  health.  The  healing  is  the  restoration 
of  the  primitive  order.  We  should  term  the  miracle  not  the  infraction 
of  a law,  but  behold  in  it  the  lower  law  neutralized,  and  for  the  time 
put  out  of  working  by  a higher ; and  of  this  abundant  analogous  ex- 
amples are  evermore  going  forward  before  our  eyes.  Continually  we 
behold  in  the  world  around  us  lower  laws  held  in  restraint  by  higher, 
mechanic  by  dynamic,  chemical  by  vital,  physical  by  moral ; yet  we 
say  not  when  the  lower  thus  gives  place  in  favor  of  the  higher,  that 
there  was  any  violation  of  law, — that  any  thing  contrary  to  nature  came 
to  pass  ;f— rather  we  acknowledge  the  law  of  a greater  freedom  swal- 
lowing up  the  law  of  a lesser.  J Thus,  when  I lift  my  arm,  the  law  of 
gravitation  is  not,  as  far  as  my  arm  is  concerned,  denied  or  annihilated ; 
it  exists  as  much  as  ever,  but  is  held  in  suspense  by  the  higher  law  of 
my  will.  The  chemical  laws  which  would  bring  about  decay  in  animal 
substances  still  subsist,  even  when  they  are  hemmed  in  and  hindered  by 
the  salt  which  keeps  those  substances  from  corruption.  The  law  of' 


* Augustine  (Con.  Faust.,  1.  56,  c.  3):  Contra  naturam  non  incongrub  dicimus 
aliquid  Deum  facere,  quod  facit  contra  id  quod  novimus  in  natura.  Hanc  enim  etiam 
appellamus  naturam,  cognitum  nobis  cursum  solitumque  naturae,  contra  quem  cum 
Deus  aliquid  facit,  magnalia  vel  mirabilia  nominantur.  Contra  illam  verb  summam 
naturae  legem  a notitiai  remotam  sive  impiorum  sive  adhuc  infirmorum,  tam  Deus 
nullo  moao  facit  quam  contra  seipsum  non  facit.  Cf.  ibid.,  1.  29,  c.  2.  The  specula- 
tions of  the  great  thinkers  of  the  thirteenth  century,  on  the  subject  of  miracles,  and 
especially  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  are  well  brought  together  by  Meander. 
{Kirch.  Gesch.,  v.  5,  pp.  910 — 925.) 

f See  a very  interesting  discussion  upon  this  subject  in  Augustine.  {De  Gen. 
ad  Lilt.,  1.  6,  c.  14 — 18.) 

j;  When  Spinoza  affirmed  that  nothing  can  happen  in  nature  which  opposes  its 
universal  laws,  he  acutely  saw  that  even  then  he  had  not  excluded  the  miracle,  and 
therefore  to  clench  the  exclusion,  added, — aut  quod  ex  iisdem  [legibus]  non  sequitur. 
But  all  which  experience  can  teach  us  is,  that  these  powers  which  are  working  in 
our  world  will  not  reach  to  these  effects.  Whence  dare  we  to  conclude,  that  be- 
cause none  which  we  know  will  bring  them  about,  so  none  exist  which  will  do  so  ? 
They  exceed  the  laws  of  our  nature,  but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  they  ex- 
ceed the  laws  of  all  nature.  If  the  animals  were  capable  of  a reflective  act,  man 
would  appear  a miracle  to  them,  as  the  angels  do  to  us,  and  as  the  animals  would 
themselves  appear  to  a lower  circle  of  organic  life.  The  comet  is  a miracle  as  re- 
gards our  solar  system ; that  is,  it  does  not  own  the  laws  of  our  system,  neither  do 
those  laws  explain  it.  Yet  is  there  a higher  and  wider  law  of  the  heavens,  whether 
fully  discovered  or  not,  in  which  its  motions  are  included  as  surely  as  those  of  the 
planets  which  stand  in  immediate  relation  to  our  sun. 


22 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATURE. 


sin  in  a regenerate  man  is  held  in  continual  check  by  the  law  of  the 
spirit  of  life ; yet  is  it  in  his  members  still,  not  indeed  working,  for  a 
mightier  law  has  stepped  in  and  now  holds  it  in  check,  but  still  tnere, 
and  ready  to  work,  did  that  higher  law  cease  from  its  more  effectual 
operation.  What  in  each  of  these  cases  is  wrought  may  be  against  one 
particular  law,  that  law  being  contemplated  in  its  isolation,  and  rent 
away  from  the  complex  of  laws,  whereof  it  forms  only  a part.  But  no 
law  does  stand  thus  alone,  and  it  is  not  against,  but  rather  in  entire  har- 
mony with,  the  system  of  laws  : for  the  law  of  those  laws  is,  that  where 
powers  come  into  conflict,  the  weaker  shall  give  place  to  the  stronger, 
the  lower  to  the  higher.  In  the  miracle,  this  world  of  ours  is  drawn  into 
and  within  a higher  order  of  things ; laws  are  then  at  work  in  the  world, 
which  are  not  the  laws  of  its  fallen  condition,  for  they  are  laws  of  migh- 
tier range  and  higher  perfection ; and  as  such  they  claim  to  make  them- 
selves felt,  and  to  have  the  pre-eminence  which  is  rightly  their  own.*  To 
make  this  clearer  I might  take  a familiar  illustration,  borrowed  from  our 
own  church-system  of  feasts  and  fasts.  It  is  the  rule  here  that  if  the  fes- 
tival of  the  Nativity  fall  on  a day  which  was  designated  in  the  ordinary 
calendar  for  a fast,  the  former  shall  displace  the  latter,  and  the  day  shall 
be  observed  as  a festival.  Shall  we  therefore  say  that  the  Church  has 
awkwardly  contrived  two  systems  which  here  may,  and  sometimes  do, 
come  into  collision  with  one  another  'i  and  not  rather  admire  her  more 
complex  law,  and  note  how  in  the  very  concurrence  of  the  two,  with  the 
displacement  of  the  poorer  by  the  richer,  she  brings  out  her  idea  that 
holy  joy  is  a higher  thing  even  than  holy  sorrow,  and  shall  at  last  swal- 
low it  up  altogether 

* In  remarkable  words  tbe  writer  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (xix.  6)  describes 
now  in  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  all  nature  was  in  its  kind  moulded  and  fashioned 
again  from  above  ( rj  ktlcl£  tt&Xlv  avoOev  Sietvttovto)  that  it  might  serve  God’s  pur- 
poses for  the  deliverance  of  his  people,  and  punishment  of  his  enemies. 

1 Thus  Aquinas,  whose  greatness  and  depth  upon  the  subject  of  miracles  I well 
remember  once  hearing  Coleridge  exalt,  and  painfully  contrast  with  the  modem  theol- 
ogy on  the  same  subject  {Sum.  Theol.,  pars  1,  qu.  105,  art.  6) : A qualibet  causa  deriva- 
tur  aliquis  ordo  in  suos  effectus,  cum  quaelibet  causa  habeat  rationem  prineipii.  Et 
ideo  secundum  multiplicationem  causarum  multiplicantur  et  ordines,  quorum  unus 
continetur  sub  altero,  sicut  et  causa  eontinetur  sub  causa.  Unde  causa  superior  non 
continetur  sub  ordine  causae  inferiorJs,  sed  & con  verso.  Cujus  exemplum  apparet  in  re- 
bus humanis.  Nam  ex  patrefamilias  dependet  ordo  domus,  qui  continetur  sub  ordine 
^ivitatis,  qui  procedit  a civitatis  rectore : cum  et  hie  contineatur  sub  ordine  regis,  a 
quo  totum  regnum  ordinatur.  Si  ergo  ordo  rerum  consideretur  prout  dependet  a prima 
causa,  sic  contra  rerum  ordinem  Deus  facere  non  potest.  Si  enim  sic  faceret,  faceret 
contra  suam  prasscientiam  aut  voluntatem  aut  bonitatem.  Si  vero  consideretur  rerum 
*>rdo,  prout  dependet  a qualibet  secundarum  causarum,  sic  Deus  potest  facere  prcetei 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATURE. 


28 


It  is  with  these  wonders  which  have  been,  exactly  as  it  will  be  with 
those  wonders  which  we  look  for  in  regard  of  our  own  mortal  bodies, 
and  this  physical  universe.  We  do  not  speak  of  these  changes  which 
are  in  store  for  this  and  those  as  violations  of  law.  W e should  not  speak 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  as  something  contrary  to  nature,  as  un- 
natural ; yet  no  power  now  working  in  the  world  could  bring  it  about ; 
it  must  be  wrought  by  some  power  not  yet  displayed,  which  God  has 
kept  hi  reserve.  So,  too,  the  great  change  which  is  in  store  for  the  out- 
ward  world,  and  out  of  which  it  shall  issue  as  a new  heaven  and  a new 
earth,  far  exceeds  any  energies  now  working  in  the  world,  to  bring  it  to 
pass,  (however  there  may  be  predispositions  for  it  now,  starting  points 
from  which  it  will  proceed ;)  yet  it  so  belongs  to  the  true  idea  of  the 
world,  now  so  imperfectly  realized,  that  when  it  does  take  place,  it  will 
be  felt  to  be  the  truest  nature,  which  only  then  at  length  shall  have  come 
perfectly  to  the  birth. 

The  miracles,  then,  not  being  against  nature,  however  they  may  be 
beside  and  beyond  it,  are  in  no  respect  slights  cast  upon  its  ordinary  and 
every-day  workings;  but  rather,  when  contemplated  aright,  are  an 
honoring  of  these,  in  the  witness  which  they  render  to  the  source  from 
which  these  also  originally  proceed.  For  Christ,  healing  a sick  man 
with  his  word,  is  in  fact  claiming  in  this  to  be  the  lord  and  author  of  all 
the  healing  powers  which  have  ever  exerted  their  beneficent  influence 
on  the  bodies  of  men,  and  saying,  “ I will  prove  this  fact,  which  you  are 
ever  losing  sight  of,  that  in  me  the  fontal  power  which  goes  forth  in  a 
thousand  gradual  cures  resides,  by  this  time  only  speaking  a word,  and 
bringing  back  a man  unto  perfect  health ;” — not  thus  cutting  off  those 
other  and  more  gradual  healings  from  his  person,  but  truly  linking  them 
to  it.*  So  again  when  he  multiplies  the  bread,  when  he  changes  the 
water  into  wine,  what  does  he  but  say,  “ It  is  I and  no  other  who,  by  the 
sunshine  and  the  shower,  by  the  seed-time  and  the  harvest,  give  food  for 
the  use  of  man;  and  you  shall  learn  this,  which  you  are  always  in 
danger  of  unthankfully  forgetting,  by  witnessing  for  once  or  for  twice, 
ui  if  not  actually  witnessing,  yet  having  it  rehearsed  in  your  ears  for 

ordinem  rerum;  quia  ordini  secundarum  causarum  ipse  non  est  subjectus;  sed  talis 
ordo  ei  subjicitur,  quasi  ab  eo  procedens,  non  per  necessitatem  naturte  sed  per  ar bi- 
triurn voluntatis  ; potuisset  enim  et  alium  ordinem  rerum  instituere. 

* Bernard  Connor’s  Evangelimn  Medici , seu  Medicina  Mystica,  London,  1697, 
awakened  some  attention  at  the  time  of  its  publication,  and  drew  down  many  sus- 
picions of  infidelity  on  its  author  (see  the  Biographie  Univ.  under  his  name.)  I have 
not  mastered  the  book,  as  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  ; but  on  a slight  acquaintance, 
my  impression  is  that  these  charges  against  the  author  are  without  any  ground.  The 
book  bears  on  this  present  part  of  our  subject. 


24 


THE  MIRACLES  AND  NATURE. 


ever,  how  the  essences  of  things  are  mine,  how  the  bread  grows  in  my 
hands,  how  the  water,  not  drawn  up  into  the  vine,  nor  slowly  transmuted 
into  the  juices  of  the  grape,  nor  from  thence  expressed  in  the  vat,  but  sim- 
ply at  my  bidding,  changes  frito  wine.  You  burn  incense  to  your  drag, 
but  it  is  I who,  giving  you  in  a moment  the  draught  of  fishes  which  you 
had  yourselves  long  labored  for  in  vain,  will  remind  you  who  guides 
them  through  the  ocean  paths,  and  suffers  you  either  to  toil  long  and  to 
take  nothing,  or  crowns  your  labors  with  a rich  and  unexpected  harvest 
of  the  sea.” — Even  the  single  miracle  which  wears  an  aspect  of  seve- 
rity, that  of  the  cursed  fig-tree,  speaks  the  same  language,  for  in  that 
the  same  gracious  Lord  is  declaring,  u These  scourges  of  mine,  where- 
with I punish  your  sins,  and  summon  you  to  repentance,  continually  miss 
their  purpose  altogether,  or  need  to  be  repeated  again  and  again,  and 
this  mainly  because  you  see  in  them  only  the  evil  accidents  of  a blind 
nature  ; but  I will  show  you  that  it  is  I and  no  other  who  smite  the  earth 
with  a curse,  who  both  can  and  do  send  these  strokes  for  the  punishing 
of  the  sins  of  men.” 

And  we  can  quite  perceive  how  all  this  should  have  been  necessary.* 
For  if  in  one  sense  the  orderly  workings  of  nature  reveal  the  glory  of 
God,  (Ps.  xix.  1 — 6,)  in  another  they  hide  that  glory  from  our  eyes ; if 
they  ought  to  make  us  continually  to  remember  him,  yet  there  is  danger 
that  they  lead  us  to  forget  him,  until  this  world  around  us  shall  prove — 
not  a translucent  medium,  through  which  we  look  to  him,  but  a thick 
impenetrable  veil,  concealing  him  wholly  from  our  sight.  Were 
there  no  other  purpose  in  the  miracles  than  this,  namely  to  testify  the 
liberty  of  God,  and  to  affirm  the  will  of  God,  which,  however  it  habitu- 
ally shows  itself  in  nature,  is  yet  more  than  and  above  nature,  were  it 
only  to  break  a link  in  that  chain  of  cause  and  effect,  which  else  we 
should  come  to  regard  as  itself  God,  as  the  iron  chain  of  an  inexorable 
necessity,  binding  heaven  no  less  than  earth,  they  would  serve  a great 
purpose,  they  would  not  have  been  wrought  in  vain.  But  there  are 
other  purposes  than  these,  and  purposes  yet  more  nearly  bearing  on  the 
salvation  of  men,  to  which  they  serve,  and  to  the  consideration  of  these 
we  have  now  arrived.f 

* Augustine  ( Enarr . in  Ps.  cx.  4) : [Deus]  reservans  opportune  inusitata  prodigia, 
quse  infirmitas  hominis  novitati  intenta  merainerit,  cum  sint  ejus  miracula  quotidiana 
majora.  Tot  per  universam  terram.  arbores  creat  et  nemo  miratur ; arefecit  verbo 
unam,  et  stupefacta  sunt  cor  da  mortalium. . . .Hoc  enim  miraculum  maxima  adtentis 
cordibus  inhserebit,  quod  assiduitas  non  vilefecerit. 

f J.  Muller  (Be  Mirac.  J.  C.  Nat.  et  Necess.,  par.  1,  p.  43) : Etiamsi  nullus  alius 
miraculorum  esset  usus,  nisi  ut  absolutam  illam  divinae  voluntatis  libertatem  demon- 
strent,  humanamque  arrogantiam.  immodicse  legis  naturalis  admirationi  junctam,  com 
pescant,  miracula  haud  temere  essent  edita. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 

Is  the  miracle  to  command  absolutely  and  without  further  question  the 
obedience  of  those  in  whose  sight  it  is  done,  or  to  whom  it  comes  as  an 
adequately  attested  fact,  so  that  the  doer  and  the  doctrine,  without  any 
more  debate,  shall  be  accepted  as  from  God  % It  cannot  be  so,  for  side 
by  side  with  the  miracles  which  serve  for  the  furthering  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  runs  another  line  of  wonders,  counterworks  of  him,  who  is  ever 
the  ape  of  the  Most  High,  who  has  still  his  caricatures  of  the  holiest ; 
and  who  knows  that  in  no  way  can  he  so  realize  his  character  of  Satan, 
or  the  Hinderer,  as  by  offering  that  which  shall  either  be  accepted  in- 
stead of  the  true,  or,  being  discovered  false,  shall  bring  the  true  into 
like  discredit  with  itself.  For  that  it  is  meant  in  Scripture  to  attribute 
real  wonders  to  him  there  is  to  me  no  manner  of  doubt.  They  are 
“ lying  wonders,”  (2  Thes.  ii.  9,)  not  because  in  themselves  frauds  and 
illusions,  but  because  they  are  wrought  to  support  the  kingdom  of  lies.* 

Thus  I cannot  doubt  that,  according  to  the  intention  of  Scripture  we 
are  meant  to  understand  of  the  Egyptian  magicians,  that  they  stood  in 
relation  with  a spiritual  kingdom  as  truly  as  did  Moses  and  Aaron.  In- 

* Gerhard  ( Loc . Theoll.,  loc.  23,  c.  11,  §274):  Antichristi  miracula  dicuntur  men- 
dacia, . . . .non  tam  ration oformoe,  quasi  omnia  futura  sint  falsa  et  adparentia  dun- 
taxat,  quam  ratione  finis , quia  scilicet  ad  confirmationem  mendacii  erunt  directa. 
Chrysostom,  who  at  first  explains  the  passage  in  the  other  way,  that  they  are  “ lying” 
quoad  formam,  (ovSev  akrideg,uXka,  rcpog  uTrdrrjv  rd  rravra,)  yet  afterwards  suggests 
the  correcter  explanation,  rj  diexpeva/ievoig,  rj  elg  ipevdog  ay  ova  t.  Augustine  {Be  Civ. 
Dei , 1.  20,  c.  19,)  does  not  absolutely  determine  for  either,  observing  that  the  event 
must  decide.  According  to  Aquinas  they  will  only  be  relative  wonders  {Summ.  Theol., 
p.  la,  qu.  114,  art.  4):  Dsemones  possunt  facere  miracula,  quae  scilicet  homines  mi- 
rantur,  in  quantum  eorum  facultatem  et  cognitionem  excedunt,  Nam  et  unus  homo 
in  quantum  facit  aliquid  quod  est  supra  facultatem  et  cognitionem  alterius,  dr.cit 
alium  in  admirationem  sui  operis,  et  quodammodo  miraculum  videatur  operarL 


26 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


deed  only  so  does  the  conflict  between  those  and  these  come  out  in  its 
true  significance.  It  loses  the  chiefest  part  of  this  significance  if  we 
think  of  their  wonders  as  mere  conjurers’  tricks,  dexterous  sleights  of 
hand,  with  which  they  imposed  upon  Pharaoh  and  his  servants ; making 
believe,  and  no  more,  that  their  rods  turned  into  serpents,  that  they  also 
changed  water  into  blood.  Rather  was  this  a conflict  not  merely  be- 
tween the  might  of  Egypt’s  king  and  the  power  of  God;  but  the  gods 
of  Egypt,  the  spiritual  powers  of  wickedness  which  underlay,  and  were 
the  soul  of,  that  dark  and  evil  kingdom,  were  in  conflict  with  the  God 
of  Israel.  In  this  conflict,  it  is  true,  their  nothingness  very  soon  was 
apparent;  but  yet  most  truly  the  two  unseen  kingdoms  of  light  and 
darkness  did  then  in  presence  of  Pharaoh  do  open  battle,  each  seeking 
to  win  the  king  for  itself,  and  to  draw  him  into  its  own  element.*  Else, 
unless  it  had  been  such  a conflict  as  this,  what  meaning  would  such 
passages  have  as  that  in  Moses’  Song,  “ Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O Lord, 
among  the  gods?”  (Exod.  xv.  11  ;)  or  that  earlier,  “Against  all  the 
gods  of  Egypt  I will  execute  judgment;  I am  the  Lord.  ” (Exod.  xii. 
12 ; cf.  Numb,  xxxiii.  4.)  As  it  was  then , so  probably  was  it  again  at 
the  Incarnation,  for  Satan’s  open  encounter  of  our  Lord  in  the  wilderness 
was  but  one  form  of  his  manifold  opposition ; and  we  seem  to  have  a 
hint  of  a resistance  similar  to  that  of  the  Egyptian  magicians  in  the 
withstanding  of  Paul  which  is  attributed  to  Elymas.  (Acts  xiii.  8 ; cf. 
2 Tim.  iii.  8.f)  But  whether  then  it  was  so,  or  not,  so  will  it  be  cer- 
tainly at  the  end  of  the  world.  (Matt.  xxiv.  24 ; 2 Thess.  ii.  9 ; Rev. 
xiii.  13.)  Thus  it  seems  that  at  each  great  crisis  and  epoch  of  the 
kingdom,  the  struggle  between  the  light  and  the  darkness,  which  has 
ever  been  going  forward  comes  out  into  visible  manifestation. 

* The  principal  argument  against  this,  is  the  fact  that  extraordinary  feats  of  exactly 
like  kinds  are  done  by  the  modern  Egyptian  charmers ; some,  which  are  perfectly  in- 
explicable, are  recounted  in  the  great  French  work  upon  Egypt,  and  attested  by  keen 
and  sharp-sighted  observers.  But  taking  into  consideration  all  which  we  know  about 
these  magicians,  that  they  do,  and  apparently  have  always,  constituted  an  hereditary 
guild,  that  the  charmer  throws  himself  into  an  ecstatic  state ; the  question  remains, 
how  far  there  may  not  be  here  a wreck  and  surviving  fragment  of  a mightier  system, 
how  far  the  charmers  do  not  even  now,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  bring  themselves 
into  relation  with  those  evil  powers,  which  more  or  less  remotely  do  at  the  last  un- 
derlie every  form  of  heathen  superstition.  On  this  matter  Hengstenberg  {Die  Bucher 
Mose's  und  JEgypten,  pp.  97 — 103)  has  much  of  interesting  matter. 

f Gregory  the  Great  {Moral.,  1.  34,  c.  3)  has  a curious  and  interesting  passage  on 
the  miracles  of  Antichrist.  According  to  him,  one  of  the  great  trials  of  the  elect  will 
be,  the  far  more  glorious  miracles  which  he  shall  show,  than  any  which  in  those  last 
days  the  Church  shall  be  allowed  to  accomplish.  From  the  Church  signs  and  won- 
ders will  be  well  nigh  or  altogether  withdrawn,  while  the  greatest  and  most  startling 
of  these  will  be  at  his  beck. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


2l 


Yet  while  the  works  of  Antichrist  and  his  organs  are  not  mere  tricks 
and  juggleries,  neither  are  they  miracles  in  the  very  highest  sense  of  the 
word ; they  only  partake,  in  part,  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  mira- 
cle. This  they  have,  indeed,  in  common  with  it,  that  they  are  real 
works  of  a power  which  is  suffered  to  extend  thus  far,  and  not  merely 
dexterous  sleights  of  hand ; hut  this,  also,  which  is  most  different,  that 
they  are  abrupt,  isolated,  parts  of  no  organic  whole ; not  the  highest  har- 
monies, but  the  deepest  discords,  of  the  universe  ;*  not  the  omnipotence 
of  God  wielding  his  own  world  to  ends  of  grace,  and  wdsdom,  and  love, 
but  evil  permitted  to  intrude  into  the  hidden  springs  of  things  just  so  far 
as  may  suffice  for  its  own  deeper  confusion  in  the  end,  and,  in  the  mean 
while,  for  the  needful  trial  and  perfecting  of  God’s  saints  and  servants,  j 

This  fact,  however,  that  the  kingdom  of  lies  has  its  wonders  no  less 
than  the  kingdom  of  truth,  would  be  alone  sufficient  to  convince  us  that 
miracles  cannot  be  appealed  to  absolutely  and  simply,  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  which  the  worker  of  them  proclaims ; and  God’s  word  expressly 
declares  the  same.  (Deut.  xiii.  1 — 5.)  A miracle  does  not  prove  the 
truth  of  a doctrine,  or  the  divine  mission  of  him  that  brings  it  to  pass. 
That  which  alone  it  claims  for  him  at  the  first  is  a right  to  be  listened 
to ; it  puts  him  in  the  alternative  of  being  from  heaven  or  from  hell. 
The  doctrine  must  first  commend  itself  to  the  conscience  as  being  good, 
and  only  then  can  the  miracle  seal  it  as  divine.  But  the  first  appeal  is 
from  the  doctrine  to  the  conscience,  to  the  moral  nature  in  man.  Tor 
all  revelation  presupposes  in  man  a power  of  recognizing  the  truth  when 
it  is  shown  him, — that  it  will  find  an  answer  in  him, — that  he  will  trace 
in  it  the  lineaments  of  a friend,  though  of  a friend  from  whom  he  has 
been  long  estranged,  and  whom  he  has  well  nigh  forgotten.  It  is  the 
finding  of  a treasure,  but  of  a treasure  which  he  himself  and  no  other 
had  lost.  The  denial  of  this,  that  there  is  in  man  any  organ  by  which 
truth  may  be  recognized,  opens  the  door  to  the  most  boundless  skepticism, 
is  indeed  the  denial  of  all  that  is  godlike  in  man.  But  “ he  that  is  of 
God,  heareth  God’s  word,”  and  knows  it  for  that  which  it  proclaims  it- 
self to  be. 

It  may  be  objected,  indeed,  If  this  be  so,  if  there  be  this  inward  wit- 
ness of  the  truth,  what  need  then  of  the  miracle  1 to  what  does  it  serve, 
when  the  truth  has  accredited  itself  already  ? It  has,  indeed,  accredited 
itself  as  good,  as  from  God  in  the  sense  that  all  which  is  good  and  true 
is  from  him,  as  * fiatever  was  precious  in  the  teaching  even  of  heathen 
sage  or  poet  was  from  him  ; — but  not  as  yet  as  a new  word  directly  from 

* They  have  the  veritas  format,  but  not  the  veritas  finis. 

f See  Augustine,  De  Trin.,  1.  3,  c.  7 — 9. 


28 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


him — a new  speaking  on  his  part  to  man.  The  miracles  are  to  be  the 
credentials  for  the  bearer  of  that  good  word,  signs  that  he  has  a special 
mission  for  the  realization  of  the  purposes  of  God  in  regard  of  humanity.* 
When  the  truth  has  found  a receptive  heart,  has  awoke  deep  echoes  in 
the  innermost  soul  of  man,  he  who  brings  it  may  thus  show  that  he 
stands  yet  nearer  to  God  than  others,  that  he  is  to  be  heard  not  merely 
as  one  that  is  true,  but  as  himself  the  Truth,  (see  Matt.  xi.  4,  5 ; John 
v.  36  ;)  or  if  not  this,  as  an  immediate  messenger  standing  in  direct  con- 
nection with  him  who  is  the  Truth,  (1  Kin.  xiii.  3 ;)  claiming  unreserved 
submission,  and  the  reception,  upon  his  authority,  of  other  statements 
which  transcend  the  mind  of  man, — mysteries,  which  though,  of  course, 
not  against  that  measure  and  standard  of  truth  which  God  has  given  unto 
every  man,  yet  which  cannot  be  weighed  or  measured  by  it. 

To  ask  such  a sign  from  any  one  who  comes  professing  to  be  the 
utterer  of  a new  revelation,  the  bringer  of  a direct  message  from  God,  to 
demand  this,  even  when  the  word  already  commends  itself  as  in  itself 
good,  is  no  mark  of  unbelief,  but  on  the  contrary  is  a duty  upon  his  part 
to  whom  the  message  is  brought.  Else  might  he  lightly  be  persuaded 
to  receive  that  as  from  God,  which,  indeed,  was  only  the  word  of  man. 
Thus  it  was  no  impiety  on  the  part  of  Pharaoh  to  say  to  Moses  and 
Aaron,  “ Show  a miracle  for  you,”  (Exod.  vii.  9,  10,)  on  the  contrary, 
it  was  altogether  right  for  him  to  require  this.  They  came  saying  they 
had  a message  for  him  from  God : it  was  his  duty  to  put  them  to  the 
proof.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  a mark  of  unbelief  in  Ahaz,  (Isai.  vii. 
10 — 13,)  however  he  might  disguise  it,  that  he  would  not  ask  a sign  from 
God  in  confirmation  of  the  prophet’s  word.  Had  that  word  been  more 
precious  to  him,  he  would  not  have  been  satisfied  till  the  seal  was  set  to 
it ; and  that  he  did  not  care  for  the  seal  was  a sure  evidence  that  he  did 
not  truly  care  for  the  promise  which  with  that  was  to  be  sealed. 

But  the  purpose  of  the  miracle  being,  as  we  have  seen,  to  confirm 
that  which  is  good,  so,  upon  the  other  hand,  where  the  mind  and  con- 
science witness  against  the  doctrine,  not  all  the  miracles  in  the  world 
have  a right  to  demand  submission  to  the  word  which  they  seal.f  On 
the  contrary,  the  great  act  of  faith  is  to  believe,  in  the  face,  and  in  de- 
spite, of  them  all,  in  what  God  has  revealed  to,  and  implanted  in,  the 
soul,  of  the  holy  and  the  true ; not  to  believe  another  Gospel,  though  an 

* Gregory  the  Great  {Horn.  4 in  Hvang.) : Unde  et  adjuncta  sunt  prsedicationi- 
bus  sanctis  miracula  ; ut  fidem  verbis  daret  virtus  ostensa,  et  nova  facer ent,  qui  nova 
prcedicarent. 

f As  Gregory  the  Great  says  -well — the  Church  does  not  so  much  deny,  as  de- 
spise the  miracles  of  heretics  {Moral.  1.  20,  c.  7) : Sancta  Ecclesia,  etiam  si  qua  fiunt 
hzereticorum  miracula,  despicit ; quia  hsec  sanctitatis  specimen  non  esse  cognoscit. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OE  THE  MIRACLE. 


29 


angel  from  heaven,  or  one  transformed  into  such,  should  bring  it ; (Deut. 
xiii.  3 ; Gal.  i.  8 ;*)  and  instead  of  compelling  assent,  miracles  are  then 
rather  warnings  to  us  that  we  keep  aloof,  for  they  tell  us  that  not  merely 
lies  are  here,  for  to  that  the  conscience  bore  witness  already,  but  that  he 
who  utters  them  is  more  than  a common  deceiver,  is  eminently  “a  liar 
and  an  antichrist,”  a-  false  prophet, — standing  in  more  immediate  con- 
nection than  other  deceived  and  evil  men  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  so 
that  Satan  has  given  him  his  power,  (Rev.  xiii.  2,)  is  using  him  to  be  an 
especial  organ  of  his,  and  to  do  a signal  work  for  him.f 

But  in  these  things,  if  they  are  so,  there  might  seem  a twofold  dan- 
ger to  which  the  simple  and  unlearned  Christian  would  be  exposed — the 
danger  first  of  not  receiving  that  which  indeed  comes  from  God,  or  sec- 
ondly, of  receiving  that  which  comes  from  an  evil  source.  But  indeed 
these  dangers  do  not  beset  the  unlearned  and  the  simple  more  than  they 
beset  and  are  part  of  the  trial  and  temptation  of  every  man — the  safe- 
guard from  either  of  these  fatal  errors  lying  altogether  in  men’s  moral 
and  spiritual,  and  not  at  all  in  their  intellectual,  condition.  They  only 
find  the  witness  which  the  truth  bears  to  itself  to  be  no  witness,  they 
only  believe  the  lying  wonders,  in  whom  the  moral  sense  is  already  per- 
verted ; they  have  not  before  received  the  love  of  the  truth  that  they 
might  be  saved  from  believing  a lie.  Thus,  then,  their  believing  this 
lie  and  rejecting  that  truth  is,  in  fact,  but  the  final  judgment  upon  them 
that  have  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness.  With  this  view  exactly 
agree  the  memorable  words  of  St.  Paul,  (2  Thess.  ii.  9 — 12.)  wherein  he 
declares  that  it  is  the  anterior  state  of  every  man  which  shall  decide 


* Augustine  (Be  Civ.  Dei,  L 10,  c.  16):  Si  tantum  hi  [angeli]  mirabilibus  faetis 
humanas  permoverent  mentes,  qui  sacrificia  sibi  expetunt : illi  autem  qui  hoc  prohibent, 
et  uni  tantum  Deo  sacrificari  jubent,  nequaquam  ista  visibilia  miracula  facere  dignaren- 
tur,  profecto  non  sensu  corporis,  sed  ratione  mentis  praeponenda  eorem  esset  auctoritas. 
So  to  the  Manichaeans  he  says  (Con.  Faust,  1.  13,  c.  5):  Miracula  non  fadtis;  quae  si 
faceretis,  etiam  ipsa  in  vobis  caveremus,  praestruente  nos  Domino,  et  dicente,  Exsurgent 
multi  pseudo-christi  et  pseudo-prophetae,  et  facient  signa  et  prodigia  multa. 

f Thus  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Hear.,  L 2,  c.  31,  § 3)  calls  such  deceitful  workers,  “ pre- 
cursors of  the  great  Dragon,”  and  speaks  exactly  this  warning,  saying,  Quos  similiter 
atque  ilium  devitare  oportet,  et  quanto  majore  phantasmate  operari  dicuntur,  tanto  ma- 
gis  observare  eos,  quasi  majorem  nequitiae  spiritum  perceperint.  And  Tertullian,  re- 
futing Gnostics,  who  argued  that  there  was  no  need  that  Christ  should  have  been  pro- 
phesied of  beforehand,  since  he  could  at  once  prove  his  mission  by  his  miracles,  [per 
documenta  virtutum,]  replies  (Adv.  Marc*,  L 3,  c.  3) : At  ego  negabo  solam  hanc  ilk 
speciem  ad  testimonium  competisse,  quam  et  Ipse  postmodum  exauctoravit.  Siquidem 
edicens  multos  venturos,  et  signa  facturos,  et  virtutes  magnas  edituros,  aversionem 
[eversionem  ?]  etiam  electorum ; nec  ideo  tamen  admittendos,  temerariam  signorum  et 
virtutum  fidem  ostendit,  ut  etiam  apud  pseudo-christos  facillimarum. 


BO 


THE  AUTHORITY  OE  THE  MIRACLE. 


whether  he  shall  receive  the  lying  wonders  of  Antichrist  or  reject  them. 
(Cf.  John  v.  43.)  For  while  they  come  “with  all  deceivableness  of 
unrighteousness”  to  those  whose  previous  condition  has  fitted  them  to 
embrace  them,  who  have  been  ripening  themselves  for  this  extreme 
judgment,  there  is  ever  something  in  these  wonders,  something  false,  or 
immoral,  or  ostentatious,  or  something  merely  idle,  which  detects  and 
lays  them  bare  to  a simple  faith,  and  for  that  at  once  broadly  differences 
them  from  those  which  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  the  truth.* * * § 

These  differences  have  been  often  brought  out.  They  are  immoral ; j 
or  if  not  so,  yet  futile,  without  consequences,  leading  to  and  ending  in 
nothing.  For  as  the  miracle,  standing  as  it  does  in  connection  with 
highest  moral  ends,  must  not  be  itself  an  immoral  act,  so  may  it  not  be 
in  itself  an  act  merely  futile,  issuing  in  vanity  and  nothingness.  This  is 
the  argument  which  Origen  continually  uses,  when  he  is  plied  w./th  the 
alleged  miracles  of  heathen  saints  and  sages.  He  counts,  and  rightly, 
that  he  has  sufficiently  shown  their  emptiness,  when  he  has  asked,  and 
obtained  no  answer  to,  this  question,  “ What  came  of  these  1 In  what 
did  they  issue  ? Where  is  the  society  which  has  been  founded  by  their 
help  1 What  is  there  in  the  world’s  history  which  they  have  helped  for- 
ward, to  show  that  they  lay  deep  in  the  mind  and  counsel  of  God  1 The 
miracles  of  Moses  issued  in  a Jewish  polity;  those  of  the  Lord  in  a 
Christian  Church ; whole  nations  were  knit  together  through  their  help.  J 
What  have  your  boasted  Apollonius  or  Esculapius  to  show  as  the  fruit 
of  theirs1?  What  traces  have  they  left  behind  them'?”§  And  not 

* “ You  complain,”  says  Dr.  Arnold,  in  a letter  to  Dr.  Hawkins,  {Life,  v.  2,  p. 
226,)  “of  those  persons  who  judge  of  a revelation  not  by  its  evidence,  but  by  its 
substance.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  its  substance  is  a most  essential  part  of 
its  evidence ; and  that  miracles  wrought  in  favor  of  what  was  foolish  or  wicked, 
would  only  prove  Mauicheism.  We  are  so  perfectly  ignorant  of  the  unseen  world, 
that  the  character  of  any  supernatural  power  can  only  be  judged  by  the  moral  cha- 
racter of  the  statements  which  it  sanctions.  Thus  only  can  we  tell  whether  it  be  a 
revelation  from  God  sr  from  the  Devil.” 

f Thus  Arnobius  {Adv.  Gen.,  1.  1,  c.  48)  of  the  heathen  wonder-workers : Quis 
enim  hos  nesciat  aut  imminentia  studere  praenoscere,  quae  necessario  (velint  nolint) 
suis  ordinationibus  veniunt  ? aut  mortiferam  immittere  quibus  libuerit  tabem,  aut 
familiarium  dirumpere  caritates  : aut  sine  clavibus  reserare,  quae  clausa  sunt ; aut  ora 
silentio  vincire,  aut  in  curriculis  equos  debilitare,  incitare,  tardare ; aut  uxoribus  et 
liberis  alienis  (sive  illi  mares  sint,  sive  foeminei  generis)  inconcessi  amoris  flammas  et 
furiales  immittere  cupiditates  ? Cf.  Iren^eus,  Adv.  Heer.,  1.  2,  c.  31,  § 2,  3. 

\ Con.  Cels.,  1.  2,  c.  61 : ’E Ovuv  o?mv  ovgtuvtuv  jueru  rd  crrj/jela  avrtiv. 

§ Con.  Cels.,  1.  1,  c.  67 : A eiKvvTtooav  7] fj.lv  "’EiTCkrjveg  rdv  KaTetleypevav  rtvog 
0Lu<pE?dg,  Jiafiirpov,  nal  rcaparslvav  h rt  rag  vorepov  yevsdg,  teal  ttjT^lkovtov  epyov,  ug 
IfiTvoielv  TudavorrjTa  r<p  Tiepl  gvtQv  fivQ<p,  ?Jyovn  d^d  Oeiag  avrovg  yeyovevai  cnopag. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


31 


merely,  he  goes  on  to  say,  were  Christ’s  miracles  effectual,  hut  effectual 
for  good, — and  such  good  was  their  distinct  purpose  and  aim ; for  this  is 
the  characteristic  distinction  between  the  dealer  in  false  shows  of  power 
and  the  true  worker  of  divine  works,  that  the  latter  has  ever  the  refor- 
mation of  men  in  his  eye,  and  seeks  always  to  forward  this  ; while  the 
first,  whose  own  work  is  built  upon  fraud  and  lies,  can  have  no  such 
purpose  of  destroying  that  very  kingdom  out  of  which  he  himself  grows.* * * § 
These,  too,  are  marks  of  the  true  miracles,  and  marks  very  nearly 
connected  with  the  foregoing,  that  they  are  never  mere  freaks  and  plays 
of  power,  done  as  in  wantonness,  and  for  their  own  sakes,  with  no  need 
compelling,  for  show  and  ostentation.  With  good  right  in  that  remark- 
able religious  romance  of  earliest  Christian  times,  The  Recognitions  of 
Clement\  and  in  the  cognate  Clementine  Homilies, J Peter  is  made  to 
draw  a contrast  between  the  wonderful  works  of  Christ  and  those  alleged 
by  the  followers  of  Simon  Magus  to  have  been  wrought  by  him.  What 
profit,  what  significance  was  there,  he  asks,  in  his  dogs  of  brass  or  stone 
that  barked,  his  talking  statues,  his  flights  through  the  air,  his  transfor- 
mations of  himself,  now  into  a serpent,  now  into  a goat,  his  putting  on 
of  two  faces,  his  rolling  of  himself  unhurt  upon  burning  coals,  and  the 
like  % — which  even  if  he  had  done,  the  works  possessed  no  meaning ; 
they  stood  in  relation  to  nothing ; they  were  not,  what  each  true  mira- 
cle is  always  more  or  less,  redemptive  acts ; in  other  words,  works  not 
merely  of  power  but  of  grace,  each  one  an  index  and  a prophecy  of  the 
inner  work  of  man’s  deliverance,  which  it  accompanies  and  helps  for- 
ward^ But,  as  we  should  justly  expect,  it  was  pre-eminently  thus  with 
the  miracles  of  Christ.  Each  of  these  is  in  small,  and  upon  one  side  or 
another,  a partial  and  transient  realization  of  the  great  work  which  he 
came  that  in  the  end  he  might  accomplish  perfectly  and  for  ever.  They 
are  all  pledges,  in  that  they  are  themselves  first-fruits,  of  his  power ; in 
each  of  them  the  word  of  salvation  is  incorporated  in  an  act  of  salvation. 
Only  when  regarded  in  this  light  do  they  appear  not  merely  as  illustri- 


* Con.  Cels.,  1.  1,  c.  68 ; cf.  Eusebius,  Bern.  Evang.,  L 3,  c.  6 

f L.  3,  c.  6,  (Coteleb.ii  Patt.  Apostt.,v.  1,  p.  529.) 

X Rom.  2,  c.  32—34,  (Ibid.,  p.  629.) 

§ L.  3,  c.  60  (Cotelerii  Patt.  Apostt.,  v.  1,  p.  529) : Ham  die,  quaeso,  quae  utilitas 
est  ostendere  statuas  ambulantes  ? latrare  aereos  aut  lapideos  canes  ? salire  montes  ? 
volare  per  aerem  ? et  alia  his  similia,  quae  dicitis  fecisse  Simonem  ? Quae  autem  a 
Bono  sunt,  ad  hominum  salutem,  deferuntur ; ut  sunt  ilia  quae  fecit  Dominus  nostei  _ 
qui  fecit  caecos  videre,  fecit  surdos  audire ; debiles  et  claudos  erexit,  languores  et 
daemon  es  effugavit.  . . . Ista  ergo  sign  a quae  ad  salutem  hominum  prosunt,  et 
aliquid  boni  hominibus  conferunt,  Malignus  facere  non  potest.  Cf.  Iren^eus.  Con 
Peer.,  1.  2,  c.  32,  § 3. 


32 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


ous  examples  of  his  might,  but  also  as  glorious  manifestations  of  his 
holy  love. 

It  is  worth  while  to  follow  this  a little  in  detail.  The  evils  what  are 
they,  which  hinder  man  from  reaching  the  true  end  and  aim  of  his  crea- 
tion, and  from  which  he  needs  a redemption  ? It  may  briefly  be  an- 
swered that  they  are  sin  in  its  moral  and  in  its  physical  manifestations. 
If  we  regard  its  moral  manifestations,  the  darkness  of  the  understanding, 
the  wild  discords  of  the  spiritual  life,  none  were  such  fearful  examples 
of  its  tyranny  as  the  demoniacs  ; they  were  special  objects,  therefore, 
of  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Lord.  Then  if  we  ask  ourselves  what 
are  the  physical  manifestations  of  sin ; they  are  sicknesses  of  all  kinds, 
fevers,  palsies,  leprosies,  blindness,  each  of  these  death  beginning,  a 
partial  death — and  finally,  the  death  absolute  of  the  body.  This  region 
therefore  is  fitly  another,  as  it  is  the  widest  region,  of  his  redemptive 
grace.  In  the  conquering  and  removing  of  these  evils,  he  eminently 
bodied  forth  the  idea  of  himself  as  the  Redeemer  of  men.  But  besides 
these,  sin  has  its  manifestations  more  purely  physical ; it  reveals  itself 
and  its  consequences  in  the  tumults  and  strife  of  the  elements  among 
themselves,  as  in  the  rebellion  of  nature  against  man ; for  the  destinies 
of  the  natural  world  were  linked  to  the  destinies  of  man,  and  when  he 
fell,  he  drew  after  him  his  whole  inheritance,  which  became  subject  to 
the  same  vanity  as  himself.  Therefore  do  we  behold  the  Lord,  him  in 
whom  the  lost  was  recovered,  walking  on  the  stormy  waves,  or  quelling 
the  menace  of  the  sea  with  his  word ; incorporating  in  these  acts  the 
deliverance  of  man  from  .the  rebel  powers  of  nature,  which  had  risen 
up  against  him,  and  instead  of  being  his  willing  servants,  were  often- 
times now  his  tyrants  and  his  destroyers.  These  also  were  redemptive 
acts.  Even  the  two  or  three  of  his  works  which  seem  not  to  range 
themselves  so  readily  under  any  of  these  heads,  yet  are  not  indeed  ex- 
ceptions. Eor  instance,  the  multiplying  of  the  bread  easily  shows  itself 
as  such.  The  original  curse  of  sin  was  the  curse  of  barrenness, — the 
earth  yielding  hard-won  and  scanty  returns  to  the  sweat  and  labor  of 
man;  but  here  this  curse  is  removed,  and  in  its  stead  the  primeval 

abundance  for  a moment  re-appears.  All  scantness  and  scarceness, 

such  as  this  lack  of  bread  in  the  wilderness,  such  as  that  failing  of  the 
wine  at  the  marriage-feast,  belonged  not  to  man  as  his  portion  at  the 
first ; for  all  the  earth  was  appointed  to  serve  him,  and  to  pour  the  ful- 
ness of  its  treasure  into  his  lap.  That  he  ever  should  hunger  or  thirst, 
that  he  should  have  need  of  any  thing,  was  a consequence  of  Adam’s 

fall — fitly,  therefore,  removed  by  him,  the  second  Adam,  who  came 

to  give  back  all  which  had  been  forfeited  by  the  first. 

But  the  miracle  being,  then,  this  ethical  act,  and  only  to  be  received 


THE  ATJTHOEITY  OF  THE  MIRACLE. 


33 


when  it  is  so,  and  when  it  seals  doctrines  of  holiness,  the  forgetting  or 
failing  to  bring  forward  that  the  divine  miracle  must,  of  necessity,  move 
in  this  sphere  of  redemption  only,  that  the  doctrine  also  is  to  try  the 
miracle,  as  well  as  the  miracle  to  seal  the  doctrine,  is  a most  dangerous 
omission  on  the  part  of  many  who,  in  modem  times,  have  written  so- 
called  “Evidences  of  Christianity,”  and  have  found  in  the  miracles 
wrought  by  its  Founder,  and  in  those  mainly  as  acts  of  power,  the  ex- 
clusive argument  for  its  reception  as  a divine  revelation.  On  the  place 
which  these  works  should  take  in  the  array  of  proofs  for  the  things 
which  we  believe  there  will  be  occasion,  by  and  by,  to  speak.  For 
the  present  it  may  be  sufficient  observe,  that  if  men  are  taught  that 
they  should  believe  in  Christ  upon  no  other  grounds  than  because  he 
attested  his  claims  by  works  of  wonder,  and  that  simply  on  this  score 
they  shall  do  so,  how  shall  they  consistently  refuse  belief  to  any  other, 
who  shall  come  attesting  his  claims  by  the  same?  "We  have  here  a 
paving  of  the  way  of  Antichrist,  for  as  we  know  that  he  will  have  his 
signs  and  wonders,  so,  if  this  argument  is  good,  he  will  have  right  on 
the  score  of  these  to  claim  the  faith  and  allegiance  of  men.  But  no ; the 
miracle  must  witness  for  itself,  and  the  doctrine  must  witness  for  itself, 
and  then  the  first  is  capable  of  witnessing  for  the  second  and  those 
books  of  Christian  evidences  are  utterly  maimed  and  imperfect,  fraught 
with  the  most  perilous  consequences,  which  reverence  in  the  miracle 
little  else  but  its  power,  and  see  in  that  alone  what  gives  either  to  it 
its  attesting  worth,  or  to  the  doctrine  its  authority  as  an  adequately 
attested  thing. 

* Gerhard  ( Loc . Theolln  loc.  23,  c.  11) : Miracula  sunt  doctrinse  tesserae  ac  sigilla; 
qucmadmodum  igitur  sigillum  a literis  avulsum  nihil  probat,  ita  quoque  miracula  sine 
doctrina  nihil  valent. 

8 


CHAPTER  IY. 


THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED  WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


1.  The  Miracles  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  miracles  of  our  Lord  and  those  of  the  Old  Testament  afford  many 
interesting  points  of  comparison,  and  of  a comparison  equally  instruc- 
tive, whether  we  trace  the  points  of  likeness,  or  of  unlikeness,  which 
exist  between  them.  Thus,  to  note  first  a remarkable  difference,  we  find 
oftentimes  the  holy  men  of  the  old  covenant  bringing,  if  one  may  ven- 
ture so  to  speak,  hardly  and  with  difficulty  the  wonder-work  to  the 
birth ; there  is  sometimes  a momentary  pause,  a seeming  uncertainty 
about  the  issue ; while  the  miracles  of  Christ  are  always  accomplished 
with  the  highest  ease ; he  speaks  and  it  is  done.  Thus  Moses  must 
plead  and  struggle  with  God,  “ Heal  her  now,  O God,  I beseech  thee,” 
ere  the  plague  of  leprosy  is  removed  from  his  sister,  and  not  even  so 
can  he  instantly  win  the  boon;  (Num.  xii.  13 — 15;)  but  Christ  heals 
a leper  by  his  touch,  (Matt.  viii.  3,)  or  ten  with  even  less  than  this, 
merely  by  the  power  of  his  will  and  at  a distance.*  (Luke  xvii.  14.) 
Elijah  must  pray  long,  and  his  servant  go  up  seven  times,  before  tokens 
of  the  rain  appear ; (1  Kin.  xviii.  42 — 44 ;)  he  stretches  himself  thrice 
on  the  child  and  cries  unto  the  Lord,  and  painfully  wins  back  its  life ; 
(1  Kin.  xvii.  21,  22 ;)  and  Elisha,  with  yet  more  of  effort  and  only 
after  partial  failure,  (2  Kin.  iv.  31 — 35,)  restores  the  child  of  the  Shu- 
nammite  to  life.  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  shows  himself  the  Lord  of  the 
living  and  the  dead,  raising  the  dead  with  as  much  ease  as  he  performed 
the  commonest  transactions  of  life. — In  the  miracles  wrought  by  men 

* Cyril  of  Alexandria,,  (Cramer’s  Catena  in  Luc.  v.  12,)  has  observed  and  drawn 
out  .the  contrast. 


THE  EVANGELICAL  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


35 


glorious  acts  of  faith  as  they  are,  for  they  are  ever  wrought  in  reliance 
on  the  strength  and  faithfulness  of  God,  who  will  follow  up  and  seal  his 
servant’s  word,  it  is  yet  possible  for  human  impatience  and  human  un- 
belief to  break  out.  Thus  Moses,  God’s  organ  for  the  work  of  power, 
speaks  hastily  and  acts  unbelievingly.  (Num.  xx.  11.)  It  is  needless 
to  say  of  the  Son,  that  his  confidence  ever  remains  the  same  that  his 
Father  heareth  him  always ; that  no  admixture  of  even  the  slightest 
human  infirmity  mars  the  completeness  of  his  work. 

Where  the  miracles  are  similiar  in  kind,  his  are  larger  and  freer  and 
more  glorious.  Elisha  feeds  a hundred  men  with  twenty  loaves,  (2 
Kin.  iv.  42 — 44,)  but  he  five  thousand  with  five.  They  have  continu- 
ally their  instrument  of  power  to  which  the  wonder-working  power  is 
linked.  Moses  has  his  rod,  his  staff  of  wonder,  to  divide  the  Red  Sea, 
and  to  accomplish  his  other  mighty  acts,  without  which  he  is  nothing, 
(Exod.  vii.  19;  viii.  5,  16;  ix.  23;  x.  13;  xiv.  16,  &c. ;)  his  tree  to 
heal  the  bitter  waters ; (Exod.  xv.  25 ;)  Elijah  divides  the  waters  with 
his  mantle ; (2  Kin.  ii.  8 ;)  Elisha  heals  the  spring  with  a cruse  of  salt. 
(2  Kin.  ii.  20.)  But  Christ  accomplishes  his  miracles  simply  by  the 
agency  of  his  word,  or  by  a touch,  (Matt.  xx.  34 ;)  or  if  he  takes 
any  thing  as  a channel  of  his  healing  power,  it  is  from  himself  he  takes 
it,  (Mark  vii.  33;  viii.  23;*)  or  should  he,  as  once  he  does,  use  any 
foreign  medium,  (John  ix.  6,)  yet  by  other  miracles  of  like  kind,  in  which 
he  has  recourse  to  no  such  extraneous  helps,  he  declares  plainly  that 
this  was  a free  choice  and  not  of  any  necessity.  And,  which  is  but 
another  side  of  the  same  truth,  while  their  miracles  and  those  of  the 
apostles  are  ever  done  in  the  name  of,  and  with  the  attribution  of  the 
glory  to,  another,  “ Stand  still  and  see  the  salvation  of  the  Lord,  which 
he  will  show  you,”  (Exod.  xiv.  13,)  “In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth  rise  up  and  walk,”  (Acts  iii.  6,)  “Eneas,  Jesus  Christ  maketh 
thee  whole,”  (Acts  ix.  34;  cf.  Mark  xvi.  17;  Luke  x.  17;  John  xiv. 
10 ;)  his  are  ever  wrought  in  his  own  name  and  as  in  his  own  power  : “/ 
will , be  thou  clean,”  (Matt.  viii.  3 ) “ Thou  deaf  and  dumb  spirit,  I 

* In  the  East  the  Mahometans  had  probably  a sense  of  the  fitness  of  this,  namely, 
that  Christ  should  find  all  in  himself,  when  they  made  his  healing  virtue  to  have  re- 
sided in  his  breath,  (Tholuck’s  Bluthensamml.  aus  d.  Morgenl.  Myst.,  p.  62,)  to 
which  also  they  were  led  as  being  the  purest  and  least  material  effluence  of  the  body. 
(Cf.  John  xx.  22.)  So  Agbarus  in  the  apocryphal  letter  which  bears  his  name,  mag- 
nifies Christ’s  healings,  in  that  they  were  done,  uvev  (papyatcuv  nal  fioravtiv.  Arnobius, 
too,  ( Adv . Gent,  1.  1,0.43,44,48,  52,)  lays  great  stress  upon  the  point,  that  all  which 
he  did  was  done  sine  ullis  adminiculis  rerum ; he  is  comparing,  it  is  true,  our  Lord’s 
miracles  with  the  lying  wonders  of  the  yor/reg,  not  with  the  only  relatively  inferior 
•>f  the  Old  Testament 


36 


THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 

charge  thee  come  out  of  him;”  (Mark  ix.  25;)  “Young  man,  I say 
unto  thee.  Arise.”  (Luke  vii.  14.)  Even  where  he  prays,  being  about 
to  perform  one  of  his  mighty  works,  his  disciples  shall  learn  even  from 
his  prayer  itself  that  herein  he  is  not  asking  for  a power  which  he  had 
not  indwelling  in  him,  but  indeed  is  only  testifying  thus  to  the  unbroken 
oneness  of  his  life  with  his  Eather’s,*  (John  xi.  41,  42;)  just  as  on 
another  occasion  he  will  not  suffer  his  disciples  to  suppose  that  it  is  for 
any  but  for  their  sakes  that  the  testimony  from  heaven  is  borne  unto 
him.  (John  xii.  30.)  Thus  needful  was  it  for  them,  thus  needful  for 
all,  that  they  should  have  great  and  exclusive  thoughts  of  him,  and 
should  not  class  him  with  any  other,  even  the  greatest  and  holiest  of  the 
children  of  men. 

These  likenesses  and  unlikenesses  seem  equally  such  as  beforehand 
we  should  have  naturally  expected.  We  should  have  expected  the 
mighty  works  of  either  covenant  to  be  like,  since  the  old  and  new  form- 
parts  of  one  organic  whole;  and  it  is  ever  God’s  law  that  the  lower 
should  contain  the  germs  and  prophetic  intimations  of  the  higher.  We 
should  expect  them  to  be  unlike,  since  the  very  idea  of  God’s  kingdom 
is  that  of  progress,  of  a gradually  fuller  communication  and  larger  re- 
velation of  himself  to  men,  so  that  he  who  in  times  past  spake  unto  the 
fathers  by  the  prophets,  did  at  length  speak  unto  us  by  his  Son ; and  it 
was  only  meet  that  this  Son  should  be  clothed  with  mightier  powers 
than  theirs,  and  powers  which  he  held  not  from  another,  but  such  rather 
as  were  his  own  in  fee.f 

And  this,  too,  explains  a difference  in  the  character  of  the  miracles 
of  the  two  covenants,  and  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  those  of  the  old  wear 
oftentimes  a far  severer  aspect  than  the  new.  They  are  miracles,  in- 
deed, of  God’s  grace,  but  yet  also  miracles  of  the  Law,  of  that  Law 
which  worketh  wrath,  which  will  teach,  at  all  costs,  the  lesson  of  the 
awful  holiness  of  God,  his  hatred  of  the  sinner’s  sin, — a lesson  which 
men  had  all  need  thoroughly  to  learn,  lest  they  should  mistake  and 
abuse  the  new  lesson  which  a Saviour  taught,  of  God’s  love  at  the  same 
time  toward  the  sinner  himself.  Miracles  of  the  Law,  they  preserve 
a character  that  accords  with  the  Law;  being  oftentimes  fearful  out- 
breaks of  God’s  anger  against  the  unrighteousness  of  men;  such  for 
instance  are  the  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt,  many  of  those  in  the  desert, 

Of.  Ambrose,  De  Fide,  1. 3,  c.  4. 

f Tertullian,  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  3,  passim,)  brings  tliis  out  in  a very  interesting  man 
ner ; and  Eusebius,  (Hem.  Evang.,  1.  3,  c.  2,)  traces  in  the  same  way  the  parallelisms 
between  the  life  of  Moses  and  of  Christ.  They  supposed  that  in  so  doing  they  were,  if 
any  thing,  confirming  the  truth  of  either,  though  now  the  assailants  of  Revelation  wil] 
Lave  it  that  these  coincidences  are  only  calculated  to  cast  suspicion  upon  both. 


YTTH  OTHEE  CYCLES  OF  MIEACLES. 


37 


(Numb.  xvi.  31 ; Lev.  x.  2,)  and  some  which  the  later  prophets  wrought ; 
(2  Kin.  i.  10 — 12 ; ii.  23 — 25 :)  though  of  these  also  there  are  far  more 
which  wear  a milder  aspect ; and  are  works,  as  all  our  Lord’s  are,  of 
evident  grace  and  mercy.  I say  all  of  our  Lord’s,  for  that  single  one, 
which  seems  an  exception,  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  has  no 
right  really  to  be  considered  such.  Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  our 
blessed  Lord  could  more  strikingly  have  shown  his  purpose  of  preserv- 
ing throughout  for  his  miracles  their  character  of  beneficence,  or  have 
witnessed  for  himself  that  he  was  come  not  to  destroy  men’s  lives  but 
to  save  them,  than  in  this  circumstance, — that  when  he  needed  in  this 
very  love  to  declare,  not  in  word  only  but  in  act,  what  would  be  the 
consequences  of  an  obstinate  unfruitfulness  and  resistance  to  his  grace, 
and  thus  to  make  manifest  the  severe  side  of  his'  ministry,  he  should 
have  chosen  for  the  showing  out  of  this,  not  one  among  all  the  sinners 
who  were  about  him,  but  should  rather  have  displayed  his  power  upon 
a tree,  which,  itself  incapable  of  feeling,  might  yet  effectually  serve  as  a 
sign  and  warning  to  men.  He  will'  not  allow  even  a single  exception  to 
the  rule  of  grace  and  love.*  When  he  blesses,  it  is  men  ; but  when  he 
smites,  it  is  an  unfeeling  tree.f  More  upon  this  matter  must  be  deferred 
till  the  time  comes  for  treating  that  miracle  in  its  order. 


* Compare  Lord  Bacon’s  excellent  remarks,  in  his  Meditt.  Sac.,  where  on  the 
words,  Bene  omnia  fecit,  (Mark  vii.  35,)  in  which  he  sees  rightly  an  allusion  to  Gen. 
i.  31,  he  says : Yerus  plausus  : Deus  cum  uni  versa  crearet,  vidit  quod  singula  et  om- 
nia erant  bona  nimis.  Deus  Yerbum  in  miraculis  quae  edidit  (omne  autem  miraculum 
est  nova  creatio,  et  non  ex  lege  primae  creationis)  nil  facere  voluit,  quod  non  gratiam  et 
beneficentiam  omnino  spiraret.  Moses  edidit  miracula,  et  profligavit  ^Egyptios  pestibus 
multis : Elias  edidit,  et  occlusit  ccelum  ne  plueret  super  terram ; et  rursus  eduxit  de  cce- 
lo  ignem  Dei  super  duces  et  cohortes : Elizseus  edidit,  et  evocavit  ursas  e deserto,  quse 
laniarent  impuberes ; Petrus  Ananiam  sacrilegum  hypocritam  morte,  Paulus  Elymam 
magum  csecitate,  percussit:  sed  nihil  hujusmodi  fecit  Jesus.  Descendit  super  eum 
Spiritus  in  forma  columbae,  de  quo  dixit,  Yescitis  cujus  Spiritus  sitis.  Spiritus  Jesu, 
spiritus  columbinus  : fuerunt  illi  servi  Dei  tanquam  boves  Dei  triturantes  granum,  et 
conculcantes  paleam;  sed  Jesus  agnus  Dei  sine  ira  et  judiciis.  Omnia  ejus  miracula 
circa  corpus  humanum,  et  doctrina  ejus  circa  animam  humanam.  Indiget  corpus  homi- 
nis  alimento,  defensione  ab  externis,  et  cura.  Hie  multitudinem  piscium  in  retibus  con- 
gregavit,  ut  uberiorem  victum  hominibus  praeberet : ille  alimentum  aquae  in  dignius 
alimentum  vini  ad  exhilirandum  cor  hominis  convQrtit ; ille  ficum  quod  officio  suo  ad 
quod  destinatum  fuit,  ad  cibum  hominis  videlicet,  non  fungeretur,  arefieri  jussit : ille 
penuriam  panum  et  piscium  ad  alendum  exercitum  populi  dilatavifr:  ille  ventos,  quod 
navigantibus  minarentur,  corripuit.  . . . Yullum  miraculum  judicii,  omnia  beneficen- 
tiae,  et  circa  corpus  humanum. 

f It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  should,  explain  our  Saviour’s  rebuke  to  the 
eons  of  Zebedee,  when  they  wanted  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  a village  of 
the  Samaritans,  “ as  Elias  did;”  (Luke  ix.  54;)  to  repeat,  that  is,  an  Old  Testament 


38  THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 

It  is  also  noticeable  that  the  region  in  which  the  miracles  of  the  Ola 
Testament  chiefly  move,  is  that  of  external  nature ; they  are  the  cleav- 
ing of  the  sea,  (Exod.  xiv.  21,)  or  of  a river,  (Josh.  iii.  14,)  yawnings 
of  the  earth,  (Num.  xvi.  31,)  fire  falling  down  from  heaven,  (2  Kin.  i. 
10,  12,)  furnaces  which  have  lost  their  power  to  consume,  (Dan.  iii.,) 
wild  beasts  which  have  laid  aside  their  inborn  fierceness,  (Dan.  vi.,)  and 
such  as  these  : not  of  course  these  exclusively,  but  this  nature  is  the 
haunt  and  main  region  of  the  miracle  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  the 
New  it  is  mainly  the  sphere  of  man’s  life  in  which  it  is  at  home.  And 
consistently  with  this,  the  earlier  miracles,  done  as  the  greater  number 
of  them  were,  in  the  presence  of  the  giant  powers  of  heathendom,  have 
oftentimes  a colossal  character : those  powers  of  the  world  are  strong, 
but  the  God  of  Israel  will  show  himself  to  be  stronger  yet.  Thus  is  it 
with  the  miracles  of  Egypt,  the  miracles  of  Babylon  : they  <*re  miracles 
eminently  of  strength  ;*  for  under  the  influence  of  the  great  nature- 
worships  of  those  lands,  all  religion  had  assumed  a colossal  grandeur. 
Compared  with  our  Lord’s  works  wrought  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  those 
were  the  whirlwind  and  the  fire,  and  his  as  the  still  small  voice  which 
followed.  In  that  old  time  God  was  teaching  his  people,  he  was  teach- 
ing also  the  nations  with  whom  his  people  were  brought  wonderfully 
into  contact,  that  he  who  had  entered  into  covenant  with  one  among 
all  the  nations,  was  not  one  God  among  many,  the  God  of  the  hills  or 
the  God  of  the  plains,  (1  Kin.  xx.  23,)  but  that  the  God  of  Israel  was 
the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth. 

But  Israel  at  the  time  of  the  Incarnation  had  thoroughly  learned  that 
lesson,  much  else  as  it  had  left  unlearned : and  the  whole  civilized  world 
had  practically  outgrown  polytheism,  however  it  may  have  lingered  still 
as  the  popular  superstition.  And  thus  the  works  of  our  Lord,  though 

miracle.  Christ’s  answer,  “ Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of,”  is  not,  as 
it  is  often  explained,  “ Ye  are  mistaking  a spirit  of  bitter  zeal  for  a spirit  of  lore  to 
me;” — but  the  rebuke  is  gentler,  “Ye  are  mistaking  and  confounding  the  different 
standing  points  of  the  Old  and  New  Covenant,  taking  your  stand  upon  the  old,  that 
of  an  avenging  righteousness,  when  you  should  rejoice  to  take  it  upon  the  new,  that 
of  a forgiving  love.” 

* We  find  the  false  Christs  who  were  so  plentiful  about  the  time  of  our  Lord’s 
coming,  professing  and  promising  tp  do  exactly  the  same  works  as  those  wrought  of 
yore, — to  repeat  even  on  a larger  scale  these  Old  Testament  miracles.  Thus  “ that 
Egyptian”  whom  -the  Roman  tribune  supposed  that  he  saw  in  Paul,  (Acts  xxi.  38,) 
and  of  whom  Josephus  gives  us  a fuller  account,  (Antt.,  1.  20,  c.  8,  § 6,)  led  a tumult- 
uous crowd  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  promising  to  show  them  from  thence  how,  as  a . 
second  and  a greater  Joshua,  he  would  cause  the  walls,  not  of  Jericho,  but  of  Jeru- 
salem, to  fall  to  the  ground  at  his  bidding.  (See  Vitringa’s  interesting  Essay,  De 
Signis  a Messi&  edendis,  in  his  Obss.  Sac.,  v.  1,  p.  482.) 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


39 


they  bear  not  on  their  front  the  imposing  character  which  did  those  of 
old,  yet  contain  higher  and  deeper  truths.  They  are  eminently  miracles 
of  the  Incarnation — of  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  taken  our  flesh,  and 
taking,  would  heal  it.  They  have  predominantly  a relation  to  man’s 
body  and  his  spirit.  Miracles  of  nature  take  now  altogether  a subordi- 
nate place  : they  still  survive,  even  as  we  could  have  ill  afforded  wholly 
to  have  lost  them ; for  this  region  of  nature  must  still  be  claimed  as  part 
of  Christ’s  dominion,  though  not  its  chiefest  or  its  noblest  province. 
Man,  and  not  nature,  is  now  the  main  subject  of  these  mighty  powers  ; and 
thus  it  comes  to  pass  that,  with  less  of  outward  pomp,  less  to  startle  and 
amaze,  the  new  have  a yet  deeper  inward  significance  than  the  old.* 

2.  The  Miracles  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels. 

The  apocryphal  gospels,  abject  productions  as,  whether  contemplated 
in  a literary  or  moral  point  of  view,  they  must  be  allowed  to  be,  are  yet 
instructive  in  this  respect,  that  they  show  us  what  manner  of  gospels 
were  the  result,  when  men  drew  from  their  own  fancy,  and  devised 
Christs  of  their  own,  instead  of  resting  upon  the  basis  of  historic  fact, 
and  delivering  faithfully  to  the  world  true  records  of  him  who  indeed 
had  lived  and  died  among  them.  Here,  as  ever,  the  glory  of  the  true 
comes  out  into  strongest  light  by  comparison  with  the  false.  But  in 
nothing,  perhaps,  are  these  apocryphal  gospels  more  worthy  of  note,  than 
in  the  difference  between  the  main  features  of  their  miracles  and  those 
of  the  canonical  Gospels.  Thus  in  the  canonical,  the  miracle  is  indeed 
essential,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  ever  subordinated  to  the  doctrine  which 
it  confirms,— a link  in  the  great  chain  of  God’s  manifestation  of  himself 
to  men ; its  ethical  significance  never  falls  into  the  background,  but  the 
act  of  grace  and  power  has,  in  every  case  where  this  can  find  room, 
nearer  or  remoter  reference  to  the  moral  condition  of  the  person  or  per 
sons  in  whose  behalf  it  is  wrought.  The  miracles  ever  lead  us  off  from 
themselves  to  their  Author ; they  appear  as  emanations  from  the  glory 
of  the  Son  of  God ; but  it  is  in  him  we  rest,  and  not  in  them, — they  are 
but  the  halo  round  him ; having  their  worth  from  him,  not  contrariwise, 
he  from  them.  They  are  held,  too,  together  by  his  strong  and  central 
personality,  which  does  not  leave  them  a conglomerate  of  marvellous 
anecdotes  accidently  heaped  together,  but  parts  of  a great  organic 

* Julian  the  Apostate  had  indeed  so  little  an  eye  for  the  glory  of  such  works  as 
these,  that  in  one  place  he  says,  (Cyrill.,  Adv.  Jul.,  1. 6,)  Jesus  did  nothing  wonderful, 
“ unless  any  should  esteem  that  to  have  healed  some  lame  and  blind,  and  exorcised 
some  demoniacs  in  villages  like  Bethsaida  and  Bethany,  were  very  wonderful  works.” 


40  THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 

whole,  of  which  every  part  is  in  vital  coherence  with  every  other.  But 
it  is  altogether  otherwise  in  these  apocryphal  narratives.  To  say  that 
the  miracles  occupy  in  them  the  foremost  place  would  very  inadequately 
express  the  facts  of  the  case.  They  are  every  thing.  Some  of  these 
so-called  histories  are  nothing  else  but  a string  of  these ; which  yet  (and 
this  too  is  singularly  characteristic)  stand  wholly  disconnected  from  the 
ministry  of  Christ.  Not  one  of  them  belongs  to  the  period  after  his 
Baptism,  but  they  are  all  miracles  of  the  Infancy, — in  other  words,  of 
that  time  whereof  the  canonical  Gospels  relate  no  miracle,  and  not 
merely  do  not  relate  any,  but  are  remarkably  at  pains  to  tell  us  that 
during  it  no  miracle  was  wrought,  that  in  Cana  of  Galilee  being  his 
first.  (John  ii.  11.) 

It  follows  of  necessity  that  they  are  never  seals  of  a word  and  doc- 
trine which  has  gone*  before ; they  are  never  u signs,”  but  at  the  best 
wonders  and  portents.  • Any  high  purpose  and  aim  is  clearly  altogether 
absent  from  them.  It  is  never  felt  that  the  writer  is  writing  out  of  any 
higher  motive  than  to  excite  and  feed  a childish  love  of  the  marvellous 
— never  that  he  could  say,  “ These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
life  through  his  name.”  (John  xx.  31.)  Indeed,  so  far  from  having  a 
religious , they  are  often  wanting  in  a moral  element.  The  Lord  Jesus 
appears  in  them  as  a wayward,  capricious,  passionate  child,  to  be 
feared  indeed,  seeing  that  he  is  furnished  with  such  formidable  powers 
of  avenging  every  wrong  or  accidental  injury  which  he  meets ; and  so 
bearing  himself,  that  the  request  which  the  parents  of  some  other  chil- 
dren are  represented  as  making,  that  he  may  be  kept  within  the  house, 
for  he  brings  harm  and  mischief  wherever  he  comes,  is  perfectly  justified 
by  the  facts. 

It  may  be  well  to  cite  a few  examples  in  proof,  however  harshly 
some  of  them  may  jar  on  the  Christian  ear.  Thus  some  children  refuse 
to  play. with  him,  hiding  themselves  from  him;  he  pursues  and  turns 
them  into  kids.*  Another  child  by  accident  runs  against  him  and 
throws  him  down ; whereupon  he,  being  exasperated, f exclaims,  “ As 
thou  hast  made  me  to  fall,  so  shalt  thou  fall  and  not  rise at  the  same 
hour  the  child  fell  down  and  expired. J He  has  a dispute  with  the  master 
who  is  teaching  him  letters,  concerning  the  order  in  which  he  shall  go 
through  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and  his  master  strikes  him ; whereupon 

* Evang.  Infant , c.  40,  in  Thilo’s  Cod.  Apocr.,  p.  115;  to  whose  admirable  edi 
tion  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  the  references  in  this  section  are  made  throughout. 

\ TLucpavdeig. 

t Evang.  Infant.,  c.  47,  p.  123 ; cf.  Evang.  Thomas,  c.  4,  p.  284. 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


41 


Jesus  curses  him,  and  straightway  his  arm  is  withered,  and  he  falls  on 
his  face  and  dies.*  This  goes  on,  till  at  length  Joseph  says  to  Mary, 
“ Henceforward  let  us  keep  him  within  doors,  for  whosoever  sets  himself 
against  him,  perishes.”  His  passionate  readiness  to  avenge  himself 
shows  itself  at  the  very  earliest  age.  At  five  years  old  he  has  made  a 
pool  of  water,  and  is  moulding  sparrows  from  the  clay.  Another  child, 
the  son  of  a scribe,  displeased  that  he  should  do  this  on  the  Sabbath, 
opens  the  sluices  of  his  pool  and  lets  out  the  water.  On  this  Jesus  is 
indignant,  gives  him  many  injurious  names,  and  causes  him  to  wither 
and  wholly  dry  up  with  his  curse. f 

Such  is  the  image  which  the  authors  of  these  books  give  us  of  the 
holy  child  Jesus ; — and  no  wonder ; for  man  is  not  only  unable  to 
realize  the  perfect,  he  is  unable  to  conceive  it.  The  idea  is  as  much  a 
gift,  as  the  power  to  realize  that  idea.  Even  the  miracles  which  are 
not  of  this  revolting  character  are  childish,  tricks  like  the  tricks  of  a 
conjurer,  never  solemn  acts  of  power  and  love.  Jesus  enters  the  shop 
of  a dyer,  who  has  various  cloths  from  various  persons,  to  be  dyed  of 
divers  colors.  In  the  absence  of  the  master,  he  throws  them  all  into  the 
dyeing  vat  together,  and  when  the  dyer  returns  and  remonstrates,  draws 
them  out  of  the  vat  each  dyed  according  to  the  color  which  was  enjoined.  J 
He  and  some  other  children  make  birds  and  animals  of  clay ; while  each 
is  boasting  the  superiority  of  his  work,  Jesus  says,  “I  will  cause  those 
which  I have  made  to  go  — which  they  do,  the  animals  leaping  and 
the  birds  flying,  and  at  his  bidding  returning,  and  eating  and  drinking 
from  his  hand.§  While  yet  an  infant  at  his  mother’s  breast,  he  bids  a 
palm-tree  to  stoop  that  she  may  pluck  the  fruits ; it  obeys,  and  only 
returns  to  its  position  at  his  command.  ||  Another  time  his  mother  sends 
him  to  the  well  for  water ; the  pitcher  breaks,  and  he  brings  the  water 
in  his  cloak. And  as  the  miracles  which  he  does,  so  those  that  are 
done  in  regard  of  him,  are  idle  or  monstrous  ; the  ox  and  ass  worship- 
ping him,  a new-born  infant  in  the  crib,  may  serve  for  an  example.** 

In  all  these,  as  will  be  observed,  the  idea  of  redemptive  acts  alto- 
gether falls  out  of  sight ; they  are  none  of  them  the  outward  clothing 
of  the  inward  facts  of  man’s  redemption.  Of  course  it  is  not  meant  to 
be  said  that  miracles  of  healing  and  of  grace  are  altogether  wanting  in 

* Evang.  Infant.,  c.  49,  p.  125.  In  the  Evang.  Thorn.,  c.  14,  p.  30*7,  he  only  falls 
into  a swoon,  and  something  afterwards  pleasing  Jesus,  (c.  15.)  he  raises  him  up 
again. 

f Evang.  Thom.,  c.  3,  p.  282.  This  appears  with  variations  in  the  Evang.  Infant., 
c.  46,  p.  122. 

^ Evang.  Infant.,  c.  37,  p.  111.  § Ibid,  c.  36.  ||  Ibid.,  p.  395. 

Evang.  Infant.,  p.  121.  **  Ibid.,  p.  382. 

6 


42 


THE  EVANGELICAL,  C0MPAEE1) 


these  books  ;*  that  would  evidently  have  been  incompatible  with  any 
idea  of  a Redeemer ; but  only  that  they  do  not  present  to  us  any  clear 
and  consistent  image  of  a Saviour  full  of  grace  and  power,  but  an 
image  rather  continually  defaced  by  lines  of  passion,  and  caprice,  and 
anger.  The  most  striking,  perhaps,  of  ' the  miracles  related  in  regard 
of  the  child  Jesus,  is  that  of  the  falling  down  of  the  idols  of  Egypt  at 
his  presence  in  the  land  ; for  it  has  in  it  something  of  a deeper  signifi- 
cance, as  a symbol  and  prophecy  of  the  overthrow  of  the  idol  worship 
of  the  world  by  him  who  was  now  coming  into  the  world.f  The  lions 
and  the  leopards  gathering  harmlessly  round  him  as  he  passed  through 
the  desert  on  the  way  to  Egypt,  is  again  not  alien  to  the  true  spirit  of 
the  Gospel,  and  has  its  analogy  in  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  that  he  “ was 
with  the  wild  beasts (i.  13 ;)  words  which  certainly  are  not  intro- 
duced merely  to  enhance  the  savageness  of  the  wilderness  where  he 
spent  those  forty  days  of  temptation,  but  are  meant  as  a hint  to  us  that 
in  him,  the  new  head  of  the  race,  the  second  Adam,  the  Paradisaical 
state  was  once  more  given  back.  (Gen.  i.  28.)  But  with  a very  few 
such  partial  exceptions  as  these,  the  apocryphal  gospels  are  a barren 
and  dreary  waste  of  wonders  without  object  or  aim;  and  only  instruc- 
tive as  making  us  strongly  to  feel,  more  strongly  than  but  for  these  ex- 
amples we  might  have  felt,  how  needful  it  is  that  there  should  be  other 
factors  besides  power  for  producing  a true  miracle;  that  wisdom  and 
love  must  be  there  also  ; that  where  men  conceive  of  power  as  its 
chiefest  element,  they  give  us  only  a hateful  mockery  of  the  divine. 
Had  a Christ  such  as  these  gospels  paint  actually  lived  upon  the  earth, 
he  had  been  no  more  than  a potent  and  wayward  magician,  from  whom 
all  men  would  have  shrunk  with  a natural  instinct  of  distrust  and  fear. 

3.  The  Later,  or  Ecclesiastical,  Miracles. 

It  would  plainly  lead  much  too  far  from  the  subject  in  hand  to  enter 
into  any  detailed  examination  of  the  authority  upon  which  the  later,  or, 
as  they  may  be  conveniently  termed,  the  ecclesiastical  miracles,  come 
to  us.  Yet  a few  words  must  of  necessity  find  place  concerning  the 
permanent  miraculous  gifts  which  have  been  claimed  for  the  Church  as 
her  rightful  heritage,  equally  by  some  who  have  gloried  in  their  pre- 

* For  instance,  Simon  the  Canaanite  (Ibid.,  p.  117)  is  healed,  while  yet  a child, 
of  the  bite  of  a serpent.  Yet  even  in  miracles  such  as  this,  there  is  always  something 
that  will  not  let  us  forget  that  we  are  moving  in  another  world  from  that  in  which  the 
sacred  evangelists  place  us. 

f Evang . Infant ..  c.  10 — 12,  pp.  75 — 77 ; cf.  1 Sam.  v.  S,  4. 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


43 


sumed  presence,  as  by  others  who  have  lamented  their  absence — by 
those  alike  who  have  seen  in  the  presence  of  such,  evidences  of  her 
sanctity,  or  in  their  absence,  of  her  degeneracy  and  fall.  It  is  not  my 
belief  that  she  has  this  gift  of  working  miracles,  nor  yet  that  she  was 
intended  to  have,  and  only  through  her  own  unfaithfulness  has  lost,  it ; 
nor  that  her  Lord  has  abridged  her  of  aught  that  would  have  made  her 
strong  and  glorious  in  not  endowing  her  with  powers  such  as  these. 
With  reasons  enough  for  humbling  herself,  yet  1 do  not  believe  that 
among  those  reasons  is  to  be  accounted  her  inability  to  perform  these 
works  that  should  transcend  nature.  So  many  in  our  own  day  have 
arrived  at  a directly  opposite  conclusion,  that  it  will  be  needful  shortly 
to  justify  the  opinion  here  expressed. 

And  first,  as  a strong  presumption  against  the  intended  continuance 
of  these  powers  in  the  Church,  may  be  taken  the  analogies  derived 
from  the  earlier  history  of  God’s  dealings  with  his  people.  We  do  not 
find  the  miracles  sown  broadcast  over  the  whole  Old  Testament  history, 
but  they  all  cluster  round  a very  few  eminent  persons,  and  have  re- 
ference to  certain  great  epochs  and  crises  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful, — David,  the  great  theocratic  king, — 
Daniel^  the  “ man  greatly  beloved,”  are  alike  entirely  without  them ; 
that  is,  they  do  no  miracles  ; such  may  be  accomplished  in  behalf  of  them, 
but  they  themselves  Accomplish  none.  In  fact  there  are  but  two  great 
outbursts  of  these ; the  first,  at  the  establishing  of  the  kingdom  under 
Moses  and  Joshua,  on  which  occasion  it  is  at  once  evident  that  they 
could  not  have  been  wanting;  the  second  in  the  time  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha ; and  then  also  there  was  utmost  need,  when  it  was  a question 
whether  the  court  religion  which  the  apostate  kings  of  Israel  had  set 
up,  should  not  quite  overbear  the  true  worship  of  Jehovah,  when  the 
Levitical  priesthood  was  abolished,  and  the  faithful  were  but  a scattered 
few  among  the  ten  tribes.  Their,  in  that  decisive  epoch  of  the  king- 
dom’s history,  the  two  great  prophets,  they  too  in  a subordinate  sense 
the  beginners  of  a new  period,  arose,  equipped  with  powers  which 
should  witness  that  he  whose  servants  they  were,  was  the  God  of  Israel, 
however  Israel  might  refuse  to  acknowledge  him.  There  is  here  in  all 
this  an  entire  absence  of  prodigality  in  the  use  of  miracles ; they  are 
ultimate  resources,  reserved  for  the  great  needs  of  God’s  kingdom,  not 
its  daily  incidents ; they  are  not  cheap  off-hand  expedients,  which  may 
always  be  appealed  to,  but  come  only  into  play  when  nothing  else  would 
have  supplied  their  room.  How  unlike  this  moderation  to  the  wasteful 
expenditure  of  miracles  in  the  church-history  of  the  middle  ages ! 
There  no  perplexity  can  occur  so  trifling  that  a miracle  will  not  be 
brought  in  to  solve  it : there  is  almost  no  saint,  certainly  no  disthu 


44 


THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 


guished  one,  without  his  nimbus  of  miracles  around  his  head ; they  are 
adorned  with  these  in  rivalry  with  one  another,  in  rivalry  with  Christ 
himself;  no  acknowledgment  like  this,  “John  did  no  miracle,”  (John 
x.  41,)  in  any  of  the  records  of  their  lives  finding  place. 

We  must  add  to  this  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  which  I have 
already  entered  on  at  large,  concerning  the  object  of  miracles,  that  they 
are  for  the  confirming  the  word  by  signs  following,  for  authenticating  a 
message  as  being  from  heaven — that  signs  are  for  the  unbelieving.  (1 
Cor.  xiv.  22.)  What  do  they  then  in  a Christendom  1 It  may  indeed 
be  answered,  that,  in  it  are  unbelievers  still;  yet  not  in  the  sense  in 
which  St.  Paul  uses  the  word,  for  he  would  designate  not  the  positively 
unbelieving,  not  those  that  in  heart  and  will  are  estranged  from  the 
truth,  but  the  negatively,  and  that,  because  the  truth  has  never  yet 
sufficiently  accredited  itself  to  them.  Signs  are  not  for  the  positively 
unbelieving,  since  as  we  have  seen,  they  will  exercise  no  power  over 
those  who  harden  themselves  against  the  truth ; such  will  resist  them 
as  surely  as  they  will  resist  every  other  witness  of  God’s  presence  in 
the  world ; but  for  the  unbelieving  who  are  such  by  no  fault  of  their 
own — for  them  to  whom  the  truth  is  now  coming  for  the  first  time. 
And  if  not  even  for  them  now, — as  they  exist,  for  instance,  in  a heathen 
land, — we  may  sufficiently  account  for  this  by  the  fact  that  the  Church 
of  Christ,  with  its  immense  and  evident  superiorities  of  all  kinds  over 
every  thing  with  which  it  is  brought  in  contact,  and  some  portions  of 
which  superiority  every  man  must  recognize,  is  itself  now  the  great 
witness  and  proof  of  the  truth  which  it  delivers.  That  truth,  therefore, 
has  no  longer  need  to  vindicate  itself  by  an  appeal  to  something  else ; 
but  the  position  which  it  has  won  in  the  very  forefront  of  the  world  is 
itself  its  vindication  now — is  sufficient  to  give  it  a first  claim  on  every 
man’s  attention. 

And  then  further,  all  that  we  might  ourselves  beforehand  presume 
from  the  analogy  of  external  things  leads  us  to  the  same  conclusions. 
We  find  all  beginning  to  be  wonderful — to  be  under  laws  different 
from,  and  higher  than,  those  which  regulate  ulterior  progress.  Thus 
the  powers  evermore  at  work  for  the  upholding  the  natural  world  are 
manifestly  insufficient  for  its  first  creation ; there  were  other  which 
must  have  presided  at  its  birth,  but  which  now,  having  done  their  work, 
have  fallen  back,  and  left  it  to  its  ordinary  development.  The  multi- 
tudinous races  of  animals  which  people  this  world,  and  of  plants  which 
clothe  it,  needed  infinitely  more  for  their  first  production  than  suffices 
for  their  present  upholding.  It  is  only  according  to  the  analogies  of 
that  which  thus  every  where  surrounds  us,  to  presume  that  it  was  even 
so  with  the  beginnings  of  the  spiritual  creation — the  Christian  Church. 


WITH  OTHEE  CYCLES  OF  MIEACLES. 


45 


It  is  unquestionably  so  in  the  beginning  of  that  new  creation  in  any 
single  heart.  Then,  in  the  regeneration,  the  strongest  tendencies  of  the 
old  nature  are  overborne ; the  impossible  has  become  possible,  in  some 
measure  easy ; by  a mighty  wonder-stroke  of  grace  the  polarity  in  the 
nian  is  shifted ; the  flesh,  that  was  the  positive  pole,  has  become  the 
negative,  and  the  spirit,  which  was  before  the  negative,  is  henceforth 
the  positive.  Shall  we  count  it  strange,  then,  that  the  coming  in  of  a 
new  order,  not  into  a single  heart,  but  into  the  entire  world — a new 
order  bursting  forcibly  through  the  bonds  and  hindrances  of  the  old, 
should  have  been  wonderful  % It  had  been  inexplicable  if  it  had  been 
otherwise.  The  son  of  Joseph  might  have  lived  and  died  and  done  no 
miracles : but  the  Virgin-born,  the  Son  of  the  Most  Highest,  himself 
the  middle  point  of  all  wonder, — for  him  to  have  done  none,  herein, 
indeed,  had  been  the  most  marvellous  thing  of  all. 

But  this  new  order,  having  not  only  declared  but  constituted  itself, 
having  asserted  that  it  is  not  of  any  inevitable  necessity  bound  by  the 
heavy  laws  of  the  old,  henceforth  submits  itself  in  outward  things,  and 
for  the  present  time,  to  those  laws.  All  its  true  glory,  which  is  its  in- 
ward glory,  it  retains ; but  these  powers,  which  are  not  the  gift — for 
Christ  himself  is  the  gift — but  the  signs  of  the  gift,  it  foregoes.  They 
were  as  the  proclamation  that  the  king  was  mounting  his  throne ; yet 
the  king  is  not  proclaimed  every  day,  but  only  at  his  accession : when 
he  sits  acknowledged  on  his  throne,  the  proclamation  ceases.  They 
were  as  the  bright  clouds  which  gather  round,  and  announce  the  sun  at 
his  first  appearing:  his  mid-day  splendor,  though  as  full,  and  indeed 
fuller,  of  light  and  heat,  knows  not  those  bright  heralds  of  his  rising. 
That  it  has  had  these  wonders — that  its  first  birth  was,  like  that  of  its 
wondrous  Bounder,  wonderful — of  this  the  Church  preserves  a record 
and  attestation  in  its  Scriptures  of  truth.  The  miracles  recorded  there 
live  for  the  Church ; they  are  as  much  present  witnesses  for  Christ  to 
us  now  as  to  them  who  actually  saw  them  with  their  eyes.  For  they 
were  done  once,  that  they  might  be  believed  always — that  we,  having 
in  the  Gospels  the  living  representation  of  our  Lord’s  life  portrayed  for 
us,  might  as  surely  believe  that  he  was  the  ruler  of  nature,  the  healer 
of  the  body,  the  Lord  of  life  and  of  death,  as  though  we  had  actually 
ourselves  seen  him  allay  a storm,  or  heal  a leper,  or  raise  one  dead. 

Moreover,  a very  large  proportion  of  the  later  miracles  presented  to 
our  belief  bear  inward  marks  of  spuriousness.  The  miracles  of  Scrip- 
ture,— and  among  these,  not  so  much  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Covenant 
as  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  being  the  miracles  of  that 
highest  and  latest  dispensation  under  which  we  live — we  have  a right  to 
consider  as  normal,  in  their  chief  features  at  least,  for  all  future  mira* 


46  THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 

cles,  if  such  were  to  continue  in  the  Church.  The  details,  the  local 
coloring,  may  be  different,  and  there  were  no  need  to  be  perplexed  at 
such  a difference  appearing ; yet  the  later  must  not  be,  in  their  inner 
spirit,  totally  unlike  the  earlier,  or  they  carry  the  sentence  of  condem- 
nation on  their  front.  They  must  not,  for  instance,  lead  us  back  under 
the  bondage  of  the  senses,  while  those  other  were  ever  framed  to  release 
from  that  bondage.  They  must  not  be  aimless  and  objectless,  fantastic 
freaks  of  power,  while  those  had  every  one  of  them  a meaning,  and  dis* 
tinct  ethical  aim — were  bridges  by  which  Christ  found  access  from 
men’s  bodies  to  their  souls, — manifestations  of  his  glory,  that  men  might 
be  drawn  to  the  glory  itself.  They  must  not  be  ludicrous  and  gro- 
tesque, saintly  jests,  while  those  were  evermore  reverend  and  solemn 
and  awful.  And  lastly,  they. must  not  be  seals  and  witnesses  to  aught 
which  the  conscience,  enlightened  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God, — 
whereunto  is  the  ultimate  appeal,  and  which  stands  above  the  miracle, 
and  not  beneath  it, — protests  against  as  untrue,  (the  innumerable  Romish 
miracles  which  attest  transubstantiation,)  or  as  error  largely  mingling 
with  the  truth,  (the  miracles  which  go  to  uphold  the  whole  Romish  sys- 
tem,) those  other  having  set  their  seal  only  to  the  absolutely  true.  Mira- 
cles such  as  any  of  these,  we  are  bound,  by  all  which  we  hold  most 
sacred,  by  all  which  the  Word  of  God  has  taught  us,  to  reject  and  to  re- 
fuse. It  is  for  the  reader,  tolerably  acquainted  with  the  church-history 
of  the  middle  ages,  to  judge  how  many  of  its  miracles  will,  if  these  tests 
be  acknowledged  and  applied,  at  once  fall  away,  and  come  no  more 
even  into  consideration.* 


* The  results  are  singularly  curious,  which  sometimes  are  come  to  through  the  fol- 
lowing up  to  their  first  sources  the  biographies  of  eminent  Romish  saints.  Tholuck 
has  done  so  in  regard  of  Ignatius  Loyola  and  Francis  Xavier ; and  to  him  ( Verm. 
Schrift.,  pp.  50 — 57)  I am  mainly  indebted  for  the  materials  of  the  following  note. — 
There  are  few,  perhaps,  who  have  been  surrounded  with  such  a halo  of  wonders  as 
the  two  great  ^pillars  of  the  order  of  the  Jesuits,  Loyola  and  Xavier.  Upwards  of  two 
hundred  miracles  of  Loyola  were  laid  before  the  Pope,  when  his  canonization  was  in 
question, — miracles  beside  which,  those  of  our  Lord  shrink  into  insignificance.  If 
Christ  by  his  word  and  look  rebuked  and  expelled  demons,  Ignatius  did  the  same  by  a 
letter.  If  Christ  walked  once  upon  the  sea,  Ignatius  many  times  in  the  air.  If  Christ, 
by  his  shining  countenance  and  glistening  garments,  once  amazed  his  disciples,  Igna- 
tius did  it  frequently;  and,  entering  into  dark  chambers,  could,  by  his  presence, light 
them  up  as  with  candle's.  If  the  sacred  history  tells  of  three  persons  whom  Christ 
raised  from  the  dead,  the  number  which  Xavier  raised  exceeds  all  count.  In  like 
manner,  the  miracles  of  his  great  namesake  of  Assisi  rivalled,  when  they  did  not  leave 
behind,  those  of  Christ.  The  author  of  the  Liber  Conformitatum,  writing  of  him  loss 
than  a century  after  his  death,  brings  out  these  conformities  of  the  Master  and  the 
servant : Hie  sicut  Jesus  aquam  in  vinum  convertit,  panes  multiplicavit,  et  de  navicula 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


47 


Very  interesting  is  it  to  observe  how  the  men  who  in  some  sort  fell 
in  with  the  prevailing  tendencies  of  their  age,  (for,  indeed,  who  escapes 
them  ?)  yet  did  ever,  in  their  higher  moods,  with  a truest  Christian  in- 

in  medio  fluctuum  maris  miraculose  immotfc,  per  se  a terra,  abducta,  docuit  turbas  au- 
dientes  in  littore.  Huic  omnis  creatnra  quasi  ad  nutum  videbatur  parere,  ac  si  in  ipso 
esset  status  innocentise  restitutus.  Et  ut  csetera  taceam : caecos  illuminavit ; surdos, 
claudos,  paraly ticos,  omnium  infirmitatum  generibus  laborantes  curavit,  leprosos  mun- 
davit ; dsemones  effugavit ; captivos  eripuit ; naufragis  succurrit,  et  quam  plures  mor- 
tuos  suscitavit.  (Gieseler,  Lehrbuch  der  Kir  cheng  eschichte , v.  2,  part  2,  p.  355. 

But  to  return  to  Ignatius,  and  the  historic  evidence  of  his  miracles.  Ribadeneira, 
from  early  youth  his  scholar  and  companion,  published,  fifteen  years  after  his  death, 
that  is  in  1572,  a life  of  his  departed  master  and  friend  ; which  book  appeared  again 
in  1587,  augmented  with  many  additional  circumstances  communicated  by  persons 
who  had  lived  in  familiar  intercourse  with  Ignatius  while  living,  and  who  had  most 
intimate  opportunities  of  being  acquainted  with  all  the  facts  of  his  life  (gravissimi  viri 
et  Ignatio  valde  familiares).  How  it  is  sufficiently  remarkable  that  neither  in  the  first, 
nor  yet  in  the  second  so  greatly  enlarged  and  corrected  edition,  does  the  slightest  trace 
of  a miracle  appear.  On  the  contrary,  the  biographer  enters  into  a lengthened  discus- 
sion of  the  reasons  why  it  did  not  please  God  that  any  signal  miracle  should  be  wrought 
by  this  eminent  servant  of  his  : — Sed  dicat  aliquis,  si  h£ec  vera  sunt,  ut  profecto  sunt, 
quid  causae  est,  quam  ob  rem  illius  sanctitas  minus  est  testata  miraculis,  et,  ut  multo- 
rum  Sanctorum  vita,  signis  declarata,  virtutumque  operationibus  insignita  ? Cui  ego  ; 
Quis  cognovit  sensum  Domini,  aut  quis  conciliarius  ejus  fuit  ? Ille  enim  est  qui  facit 
mirabilia  magna  solus,  propterea  illius  tantummodo  infinita  virtute  fieri  possunt,  quae- 
cumque  aut  naturae  vim  aut  modum  excedunt.  Et  ut  solus  ille  haec  potest  efficere, 
ita  ille  solus  novit,  quo  loco,  quo  tempore  miracula  et  quorum  precibus  facienda  sint. 
Sed  tamen  neque  omUes  sancti  viri  miraculis  excelluerunt ; neque  qui  Riorum  aut  mag- 
nitudine  praestiterunt,  aut  copia,  idcirco  reliquos  sanctitate  superarunt.  Hon  enim 
sanctitas  cujusque  signis,  sed  caritate  aestimanda  est.  Two  years  before  the  appear- 
ance of  the  second  edition  of  this  work,  that  is,  in  1585,  Maffei,  styled  the  Jesuit  Livy, 
published  at  Rome  his  work,  Be  Vitd  et  moribus  8.  Ignatii  Loyolce  Libri  tres  ; and 
neither  in  this  is  aught  related  of  the  great  founder  of  the  Order,  which  deserves  the 
name  of  a miracle,  however  there  may  be  here  some  nearer  approach  to  such  than  in 
the  earlier  biography — remarkable  intimations,  as  of  the  death  or  recovery  of  friends, 
glimpses  of  their  beatified  state,  ecstatic  visions  in  which  Christ  appeared  to  him  ; 
and  even  of  these,  the  list  is  introduced  in  a half  apologetic  tone,  which  shows  that 
he  has  by  no  means  thoroughly  convinced  himself  of  the  historic  accuracy  of  those 
things  which  he  is  about  to  relate : Hon  pauca  de  eodem  prcedicantur,  quo- 

rum aliqua  nobis  hoc  loco  exponere  visum  est. 

But  with  miracles  infinitely  more  astounding  and  more  numerous  the  Romish 
church  has  surrounded  his  great  scholar,  Francis  Xavier.  Miracles  were  as  his  daily 
food  ; to  raise  the  dead  was  as  common  as  to  heal  the  sick.  Even  the  very  boys  who 
served  him  as  catechists  received  and  exercised  a similar  power  of  working  wonders. 
How  there  are,  I believe,  no  historic  documents  whatever,  laying  claim  to  an  ordinary 
measure  of  credibility,  which  profess  to  vouch  for  these.  And  in  addition  to  this,  we 
have  a series  of  letters  written  by  this  great  apostle  to  the  heathen,  out  of  the  midst  of 
his  work  in  the  far  East,  (S.  Francisci  Xaverii  Epistolarum  Libri  tres.  Pragae, 


48  THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 

sight,  witness  against  those  very  tendencies  by  which  they,  with  the 
rest  of  their  contemporaries,  were  more  or  less  borne  away.  Thus  was 
it  with  regard  to  the  over-valuing  of  miracles,  the  counting  them  the 
only  evidences  of  an  exalted  sanctity.  Against  this  what  a continual 
testimony  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  was  borne ; not,  indeed,  sufficient 
to  arrest  the  progress  of  an  error,  into  which  the  sense-bound  genera- 
tions of  men  only  too  naturally  fall,  yet  showing  that  the  Church  herself 
was  ever  conscious  that  the  holy  life  was  in  the  sight  of  God  of  higher 
price  than  the  wonderful  works — that  love  is  the  greatest  miracle  of  all 
— that  to  overcome  the  world,  this  is  the  greatest  manifestation  of  the 
power  of  Christ  in  his  servants.* 

One  passage  from  Chrysostom,  in  place  of  the  many  that  might  be 
quoted,  and  even  that  greatly  abridged,  must  suffice.f  He  is  rebuking 
the  faithful,  that  now,  when  their  numbers  were  so  large,  they  did  so 
little  to  leaven  the  world,  and  this,  when  the  apostles,  who  were  but 
twelve,  effected  so  much ; and  he  puts  aside  the  excuse,  “ But  they  had 
miracles  at  command,”  not  with  the  answer,  “ So  have  we but  in 
this  language  : “ How  long  shall  we  use  their  miracles  as  a pretext  for 

our  sloth  ? And  what  was  it  then,  you  say,  which  made  the  apostles  so 
great  ? I answer,  This,  that  they  contemned  money ; that  they  tram- 
pled on  vain-glory ; that  they  renounced  the  world.  If  they  had  not 
done  thus,  but  had  been  slaves  of  their  passions,  though  they  had  raised 
a thousand  dead,  they  would  not  merely  have  profited  nothing,  but 
would  have  been  counted  as  impostors.  What  miracle  did  John,  who 
reformed  so  many  cities,  of  whom  yet  it  is  expressly  said,  that  he  did  no 
sign?  And  thou,  if  thou  hadst  thy  choice,  to  raise  the  dead  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  or  thyself  to  die  for  his  name,  which  wouldst  thou 
choose?  Would  it  not  be  plainly  the  latter?  And  yet  that  were  a 
miracle , and  this  is  but  a work.  And  if  one  gave  thee  the  choice  of 
turning  all  grass  into  gold,  or  being  able  to  despise  all  gold  as  grass, 
wouldst  thou  not  choose  the  last  ? And  rightly ; for  by  this  last  thou 
wouldst  most  effectually  draw  men  to  the  truth.  This  is  not  my  doc- 
trine, but  the  blessed  Paul’s : for  when  he  had  said,  1 Covet  earnestly 


1750,)  letters  which  prove  him  indeed  to  have  been  one  of  the  discreetest,  as  he  was 
one  of  the  most  fervent,  preachers  of  Christ  that  ever  lived ; and  which  are  full  of 
admirable  hints  for  the  missionary  ; but  of  miracles  wrought  by  himself,  of  miracles 
which  the  missionary  may  expect  in  aid  of  his  work,  there  occurs  not  a single  word. 

* See  for  instance,  Augustine’s  admirable  treatment  of  the  subject,  Hnarrt  in  Ps. 
cxxx.,  beginning  with  the  words : “ Ergo  sunt  homines,  quos  delectat  miraculum  facere, 
et  ab  eis  qui  profecerunt  in  Ecclesia  miraculum  exigunt,  et  ipsi  qui  quasi  profecisse 
sibi  videntur,  talia  volunt  facere,  et  putant  se  ad  Deum  non  pertinere,  si  non  fecerint 
f Horn.  46,  in  Matth. 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


49 


the  best  gifts,’  and  then  added,  ‘ yet  show  I unto  you  a more  excellent 
way he  did  not  adduce  miracles,  but  love,  as  the  root  of  all  good 
things.”* 

Few  points  present  greater  difficulties  than  the  attempt  to  fix  accu- 
rately the  moment  when  these  miraculous  powers  departed  from  the 
Church,  and  it  entered  into  its  permanent  state,  with  only  its  miracles  of 
grace  and  the  record  of  its  miracles  of  power ; instead  of  having  ac- 
tually going  forward  in  the  midst  of  it  those  miracles  of  power  as  well, 
with  which  it  first  asserted  itself  in  the  world.  This  is  difficult,  because 
it  is  difficult  to  say  at  what  precise  moment  the  Church  was  no  longer 
in  the  act  of  becoming , but  contemplated  in  the  mind  of  God  as  now 
actually  being  ; when  to  the  wisdom  of  God  it  appeared  that  he  had 
adequately  confirmed  the  word  with  signs  following,  and  that  these  props 
and  strengthenings  of  the  infant  plant  might  safely  be  removed  from  the 
hardier  tree.f 

* Heander  {Kirch.  Gesch.,v.  4,  pp.  225-257)  quotes  many  like  utterances  coming 
from  the  chief  teachers  of  the  Church,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  darkness  of  the  ninth 
century.  Thus  Odo  of  Clugny  relates  of  a pious  layman,  whom  some  grudged  should  be 
set  so  high,  seeing  that  he  wrought  no  miracles,  how  that  once  detecting  a thief  in  the  act 
of  robbing  him,  he  not  merely  dismissed  him,  but  gave  him  all  that  which  he  would 
wrongfully  have  taken  away,  and  adds,  Certe  milii  videtur,  quod  id  magis  admiratione 
dignum  sit,  quam  si  furem  rigere  in  saxi  duritiem  fecisset.  And  Neander  (v.  5,  pp. 
477, 606)  gives  ample  testimonies  to  the  same  effect  from  writers  of  lives  of  saints,  and 
from  others,  in  the  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thirteenth  centuries.  One  of  these  confesses 
indeed  that  it  is  a long  line  of  miracles  which  is  chiefly  looked  for  from  them  (quod  max- 
ime  nunc  exigitur  ab  iis  qui  sanctorum  vitas  describere  volunt).  There  is  a beautiful 
passage  on  the  superior  worth  of  charity  in  St.  Bernard,  Scrm.  46,  c.  8,  in  Cant. 

f This  image  is  Chrysostom’s,  who  draws  it  out  at  length  {Horn.  42,  in  Inscript. 
Act.  Apostt.) : “ As  therefore  an  husbandman,  having  lately  committed  a young  tree 
to  the  bosom  of  the  earth,  counts  it  worthy,  being  yet  tender,  of  much  attention,  on 
every  side  fencing  it  round,  protecting  it  with  stones  and  thorns,  so  that  neither  it 
may  be  torn  up  by  the  winds,  nor  harmed  by  the  cattle,  nor  injured  by  any  other  in- 
jury ; but  when  he  sees  that  it  is  fast  rooted  and  has  sprung  up  on  high,  he  takes 
away  the  defences,  since  the  tree  can  now  defend  itself  from  any  such  wrong ; thus 
has  it  been  in  the  matter  of  our  faith.  When  it  was  newly  planted,  while  it  was  yet 
tender,  great  attention  was  bestowed  on  it  on  every  side.  But  after  it  was  fixed  and 
rooted  and  sprung  up  on  high,  after  it  had  filled  all  the  world,  Christ  both  took  away 
the  defences,  and  for  the  time  to  come  removed  the  other  strengthenings.  Wherefore 
at  the  beginning  he  gave  gifts  even  unto  the  unworthy,  for  the  early  time  had  need 
of  these  helps  to  faith.  But  now  he  gives  them  not  even  to  the  worthy,  for  the 
strength  of  faith  no  longer  needs  this  assistance.”  Gregory  the  Great  {Horn.  29,  in 
Evang .)  has  very  nearly  the  same  image  : Haec  [signa]  necessaria  in  exordio  Ecclesise 
fuerunt.  Ut  enim  tides  cresceret,  miraculis  fuerat  nutrienda : quia  et  nos  cum  arbusta 
plantamus,  tamdiu  eis  aquam  infundimus,  quousque  ea  in  terrd  jam  convaluisse  v ide- 
amus ; et  si  semel  radicem  fixerint,  in  rigando  cessamus. 

7 


50 


THE  EVANGELICAL,  COMPARED 


That  their  retrocession  was  gradual,  that  this  mighty  tide  of  powei 
should  have  ebbed  only  by  degrees,* * * §  this  was  what  was  to  be  looked 
for  in  that  spiritual  world  which,  like  God’s  natural  world,  is  free  from 
all  harsh  and  abrupt  transitions,  in  which  each  line  melts  imperceptibly 
into  the  next.  We  can  conceive  the  order  of  retrocession  to  have  been 
in  this  way ; that  divine  power  which  dwelt  in  all  its  fulness  and  inten- 
sity in  Christ,  was  first  divided  among  his  apostles,  who,  therefore,  indi- 
vidually brought  forth  fewer  and  smaller  works  than  he.  It  wras  again 
from  them  further  subdivided  among  the  ever-multiplying  numbers  of 
the  Church,  who,  consequently,  possessed  not  these  gifts  in  the  same 
intensity  and  plenitude  as  did  the  twelve.  Yet  it  must  always  be 
remembered  that  these  receding  gifts  were  ever  helping  to  form  that 
which  should  be  their  own  substitute ; that  if  they  were  waning,  that 
which  was  to  supply  their  room  was  ever  waxing, — that  they  only 
waned  as  that  other  waxed ; the  flower  dropped  off  only  as  the  fruit  was 
being  formed.  If  those  wonders  of  a first  creation  have  left  us,  yet 
this  was  not  so,  till  they  could  bequeath  in  their  stead  the  standing 
wonder  of  a Church, f itself  a wonder,  and  embracing  manifold  wonders 
in  its  bosom. J For  are  not  the  laws  of  the  spiritual  world,  as  they  are 
ever  working  in  the  midst  of  us,  a continual  wonder  ? What  is  the  new 
birth  in  Baptism,  and  the  communion  of  Christ’s  body  and  blood  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  and  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul,  and  a kingdom  of 
heaven  in  the  world,  what  are  these  but  every  one  of  them  wonders'?! 

* Thus  Origen  {Con.  Cels.,  1.  2,  c.  46)  calls  the  surviving  gifts  in  the  Church 
vestiges  {lxvrl)  °f  former  powers ; and  again  1.  2,  c.  8,  he  speaks  of  them  as  ixvrj  ml 
two,  ye  yei^ova. 

| Augustine  {Be.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  22,  c.  8) : Quisquis  adhuc  prodigia,  uti  credat,  in- 
quirit,  magnum  est  ipse  prodigium,  qui  mundo  credente,  non  credat. 

£ Coleridge,  in  his  Literary  Remains,  v.  4.  p.  260,  on  this  matter  expresses  him- 
self thus : — “ The  result  of  my  own  meditations  is,  that  the  evidence  of  the  Gospel, 
taken  as  a total,  is  as  great  for  the  Christians  of  the  nineteenth  century  as  for  those 
of  the  apostolic  age.  I should  not  be  startled  if  I were  told  it  were  greater.  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  this  equally  holds  good  of  each  component  part.  An  evidence 
of  the  most  cogent  clearness,  unknown  to  the  primitive  Christians,  may  compensate 
for  the  evanescence  of  some  evidence  which  they  enjoyed.  Evidences  comparatively 
dim  have  waxed  into  noonday  splendor,  and  the  comparative  wane  of  others  once 
effulgent,  is  more  than  indemnified  by  the  synopsis  rov  tt dvrog,  which  we  enjoy,  and 
by  the  standing  miracle  of  a Christendom  commensurate  and  almost  synonymous 
with  the  civilized  world.” 

§ The  wonder  of  the  existence  and  subsistence  of  a Church  in  the  world  is  itself 
so  great,  that  Augustine  says  strikingly  and  with  a deep  truth,  that  to  believe  or  not  to 
believe  the  miracles  is  only  choosing  an  alternative  of  wonders.  If  you  do  not  believe 
the  miracles,  you  must  at  least  believe  this  miracle,  that  the  world  was  converted  with- 
out miracles.  (Si  miraculis  non  creditis,  saltern  huic  miraculo  credeAdum  est,  mundum 


WITH  OTHER  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


51 


wonders  in  this  like  the  wonders  of  ordinary  nature,  as  distinguished 
from  those  which  accompany  a new  in-coming  of  power,  that  they  are 
under  a law  which  we  can  anticipate ; that  they  conform  to  an  absolute 
order,  the  course  of  which  we  can  understand ; — but  not  therefore  the 
less  divine.*  How  meanly  do  we  esteem  of  a Church,  of  its  marvellous 
gifts,  of  the  powers  of  the  coming  world  which  are  working  within  it,  of 
its  Word,  of*  its  Sacraments,  when  it  seems  to  us  a small  thing  that 
in  it  men  are  new-born,  raised  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of 
righteousness,  the  eyes  of  their  understanding  enlightened,  and  their 
ears  opened,  unless  we  can  also  tell  of  more  visible  and  sensuous  won- 
ders. It  is  as  though  the  heavens  should  not  declare  to  us  the  glory 
of  God,  nor  the  firmament  show  us  his  handiwork,  except  at  some  single 
moment  such  as  that  when  the  sun  was  standing  still  upon  Gibeon, 
and  the  moon  in  Ajalon. 

sine  miraculis  fuisse  conversum.)  Cf.  Be  Civ.  Dei,  1.  22,  c.  8,  § 1.  And  on  the  rela- 
tion of  the  helps  to  faith,  the  witnesses  of  God’s  presence  in  the  midst  of  us  which  we 
have,  and  which  the  early  Church  had,  he  says  ( Serm . 244,  c.  8) : Apostoli  Christum 
prsesentem  videbant : sed  toto  orbe  terrarum  diffusam  Ecclesiam  non  videbant : vide- 
bant  caput  et  de  corpore  credebant.  Habemus  vices  nostras : habemus  gratiam  dispen- 
sation^ et  distributionis  nostrae : ad  credendum  certissimis  documentis,  tempora  nobis 
in  una  fide  sunt  distributa.  Illi  videbant  caput,  et  credebant  de  corpore : nos  videmus 
corpus,  et  credamus  de  capite. 

* Gregory  the  Great  {Horn.  29,  in  Evang.) : Sancta  quippe  Ecclesia  quotidie  spiri- 
taliter  facit  quod  tunc  per  Apostolos  corporaliter  faciebat.  Nam  sacerdotes  ejus  cum 
per  exorcismi  gratiam  manum  credentibus  imponunt,  et  habitare  malignos  spiritus  in 
eorum  mente  contradicunt,  quid  aliud  faciunt,  nisi  daemonia  ejiciunt  ? Et  fideles  quique 
qui  jam  vitae  veteris  secularia  verba  derelinquunt,  sancta  autem  mysteria  insonant,  Con- 
ditoris  sui  laudes  et  potentiam,  quantum  praevalent,  narrant,  quid  aliud  faciunt,  nisi novis 
linguis  loquuntur  ? Qui  dum  bonis  suis  exhortationibus  malitiam  de  alienis  cordibus, 
auferunt,  serpentes  tollunt.  Et  dum  pestiferas  suasiones  audiunt,  sed  tamen  ad  opera- 
tionem  pravam  minimi  pertrahuntur,  mortiferum  quidem  est  quod  bibunt,  sed  non  eis 
nocebit.  Qui  quoties  proximos  suos  in  opere  bono  infirmari  conspiciunt,  dum  eis  tota 
virtute  concurrunt,  et  exemplo  suae  operationis  illorum  vitam  roborant  qui  in  propria  ac- 
tione  titubant,  quid  aliud  faciunt,  nisi  super  aegros  manus  imponunt,  ut  bene  habeant  ? 
Quae  nimirum  miracula  tanto  majora  sunt,  quanto  spiritalia,  tanto  majora  sunt,  quanto 
per  haec  non  corpora  sed  animae  suscitantur ....  Corporalia  ilia  miracula  ostendunt 
aliquando  sanctitatem,  non  autem  faciunt:  haec  verb  spiritalia,  quae  aguntur  in  mente, 
virtutem  vitae  non  ostendunt,  sed  faciunt.  Ilia  habere  et  mali  possunt ; istis  autem 
perfrui  nisi  boni  non  possunt. . . . Nolite  ergo,  fratres carissimi,  amare  signa  quae  pos- 
sunt cum  reprobis  haberi  communia,  sed  haec  quae  modo  diximus,  caritatis  atque  pietatis 
miracula  amate ; quae  tanto  securiora  sunt, quanto  et  occulta ; et  de  quibus  apud  Domi- 
num  eo  major  fit  retributio,  quo  apud  homines  minor  est  gloria.  See  too  on  these 
greater  wonders  of  the  Church  Augustine,  Serm.  88,  c.  3 ; and  Origen  {Con.  Cels.,  1.  2, 
c.  48)  finds  in  them,  in  these  wonders  of  grace  which  are  ever  going  forward,  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise  that  those  who  believed  should  do  greater  things  than  Christ  him 
self.  (John  xiv.  12.)  Cf.  Bernard,  In  Ascen.  Bom.,  Serm.  1. 


U.  OF  ILL  LIB. 


52 


THE  EVANGELICAL  CYCLES  OF  MIRACLES. 


While  then  it  does  not  greatly  concern  us  to  know  when  this  power 
was  withdrawn,  what  does  vitally  concern  us  is,  that  we  suffer  not 
these  carnal  desires  after  miracles,  as  if  they  were  necessarily  saints 
who  had  them,  and  they  but  ordinary  Christians  who  were  without  them, 
as  though  the  Church  were  incomplete  and  spiritually  impoverished 
which  could  not  show  them,  to  rise  up  in  our  hearts,  as  they  are  ever 
ready  to  rise  up  in  the  natural  heart  of  man,  to  which  power  is  so  much 
dearer  than  holiness.  There  is  no  surer  proof  than  the  utterance  of 
feelings  such  as  these,  that  the  true  glory  of  the  Church  is  hidden 
from  our  eyes — no  sadder  sign  that  some  of  its  outward  trappings  and 
ornaments  have  caught  our  fancy ; and  not  the  fact  that  it  is  all  glorious 
within,  taken  possession  of  our  hearts  and  minds.  It  is,  indeed,  ill  with 
us,  for  it  argues  little  which  we  ourselves  have  known  of  the  miracles  of 
grace,  when  they  seem  to  us  poor  and  pale,  and  only  the  miracles  of 
power  have  any  attraction  in  our  eyes. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


1.  The  Jewish. 

A rigid  monotheistic  religion  like  the  Jewish,  left  but  one  way  of  escape 
from  the  authority  of  miracles,  which  once  were  acknowledged  to  be  in- 
deed such,  and  not  mere  collusions  and  sleights  of  hand.  There  re- 
mained nothing  to  say  but  that  which  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  the 
adversaries  of  the  Lord  continually  did  say,  namely,  that  these  works 
were  works  of  hell : “ This  fellow  doth  not  cast  out  devils  but  by  Beel- 
zebub, the  prince  of  the  devils.”*  (Matt.  xii.  24 ; cf.  Mark  iii.  22 — 27 ; 
Luke  xi.  15—22.)  We  have  our  Lord’s  own  answer  to  the  deep  malig- 
nity of  this  assertion;  his  appeal,  namely,  to  the  whole  tenor  of  his  doc- 
trine and  his  miracles — whether  they  were  not  altogether  for  the  over- 
turning of  the  kingdom  of  evil — -whether  such  a lending  of  power  to  him 
on  the  part  of  Satan  would  not  be  wholly  inconceivable,  since  it  were 
merely  and  altogether  suicidal.  Tor  though  it  would  be  quite  intelligible 
that  Satan  should  bait  his  hook  with  some  good,  should  array  himself  as 
an  angel  of  light,  and  do  for  a while  deeds  that  might  appear  as  deeds  of 
light,  that  so  he  might  the  better  carry  through  some  mighty  delusion — 

“ Win  men  with  honest  trifles,  to  betray  them 
In  deepest  consequence,” 

just  as  Darius  was  willing  that  a small  portion  of  his  army  should  per- 
ish, that  so  the  mighty  deceit  which  Zopyrus  was  practising  against 
Babylon  might  succeedf — yet  a lasting,  unvarying,  unrelaxing  assault 

* They  regarded  him  planum  in  signis  (Terttjllian,  Adv.  Marc.,  1.  3,  c.  6 ; cf 
Apolog.,  c.  21).  This  charge  is  dressed  out  with  infinite  blasphemous  additions  in 
the  later  Jewish  books.  (See  Eisenmenger’s  EntdecTct.  Judenth,  y.  1,  p.  148,  seq.) 
t Herodotus  1.  3,  c.  155 


54 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


on  his  kingdom  is  unintelligible  as  being  furthered  by  himself : his  king- 
dom thus  in  arms  against  itself,  could  not  stand,  but  hath  an  end.  He 
who  came,  as  all  his  words  and  his  deeds  testified,  to  destroy  the  works 
of  the  Devil,  could  not  have  come  armed  with  his  power,  and  helped  on- 
ward by  his  aid.  It  is  not  a pact  with  the  Evil  one  which  this  tells  of, 
but  of  one  mightier  than  that  Evil  one  having  entered  with  power  into 
his  stronghold,  and  who,  having  bound  him,  is  now  spoiling  his  goods. 
Our  Lord  does  in  fact  repel  the  accusation,  and  derive  authority  to  his 
miracles,  not  on  account  of  the  power  which  they  display,  however  that 
may  be  the  first  thing  that  brings  them  into  consideration,  but  on  account 
of  the  ethical  ends  which  they  serve.  He  appeals  to  every  man’s  con- 
science whether  the  doctrine  to  which  they  bare  witness,  and  which 
bears  witness  to  them,  be  not  from  above  and  not  from  beneath : and  if 
so,  then  the  power  with  which  he  accomplished  them  could  not  have  been 
lent  him  from  beneath,  since  the  kingdom  of  lies  would  never  so  contradict 
’’tself  as  seriously  to  help  forward  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of 
truth* 

There  is  indeed  at  first  sight  a difficulty  in  the  argument  which  our 
Saviour  draws  from  the  oneness  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan — namely,  that 
it  seems  the  very  idea  of  this  kingdom,  that  it  should  be  this  anarchy — 
blind  rage  and  hate  not  merely  against  God,  but  each  part  of  it  warring 
against  every  other  part.  And  this  is  most  deeply  true,  that  hell  is  as 
much  in  arms  against  itself  as  against  heaven ; neither  does  our  Lord 
deny  that  in  respect  of  itself  that  kingdom  is  infinite  contradiction  and 
division  : only  he  asserts  that  in  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  goodness  it  is 
at  one : there  is  one  life  in  it  and  one  soul  in  relation  to  that.  Just  as  a 
nation  or  kingdom  may  embrace  within  itself  infinite  parties,  divisions, 
discords,  jealousies,  and  heart-burnings ; yet  if  it  is  to  subsist  as  a nation 
at  all,  it  must  not,  as  regards  other  nations , have  lost  its  sense  of  unity ; 
when  it  does  so,  of  necessity  it  falls  to  pieces  and  perishes.  To  the 
Pharisees  he  says  *.  “ This  kingdom  of  evil  subsists ; by  your  own  con- 
fession it  does  so  it  cannot  therefore  have  denied  the  one  condition  of 
its  existence,  which  is,  that  it  should  not  lend  its  powers  to  the  over- 
throwing of  itself — that  it  should  not  side  with  its  own  foes ; I am  its 
foe,  it  cannot  therefore  be  siding  with  me.” 

This  accusation  against  the  miracles  of  Christ,  that  they  were  done 
by  the  power  of  an  evil  magic,  the  heathen  also  sometimes  used  : but  evi- 
dently having  borrowed  it  from  the  J ewish  adversaries  of  the  Christian 
faith. f Yet  in  their  mouths,  who  had  no  such  earnest  idea  of  the  king- 

* Eusebius  ( pern . Evang .,  I.  3,  c.  6)  makes  much  of  this  argument. 

•t  See  a curious  passage,  Origen,  Con.  Cels.,  1.  1,  c.  68 ; cf.  also  1.  1,  c.  6 ; 1.  2,  a. 


THE  ASSAULTS  02*  THE  MIRACLES. 


55 


dom  of  God  upon  one  side,  and  the  kingdom  of  evil  on  the  other,  and 
the  fixed  limits  which  divide  the  two,  who  had  peopled  the  intermediate 
space  with  middle  powers — some  good,  some  evil,  some  mingled  of 
both — the  accusation  was  not  at  all  so  deeply  malignant  as  in  the  mouth 
of  a Jew.  It  was  little  more  than  a stone  which  they  found  convenient- 
ly at  hand  to  fling,  and  with  them  is  continually  passing  over  into  the 
charge  that  those  works  were  wrought  by  trick — that  they  were  conjur- 
er’s arts  ; the  line  between  the  two  charges  is  continually  disappearing. 
The  heathen,  however,  had  a method  more  truly  their  own  of  evading 
the  Christian  miracles,  which  is  now  to  consider. 


2.  The  Heathen.  (Celsus,  Hierocles,  Porphyry.) 

A religion  like  the  Jewish,  which,  besides  God,  and  the  angels  who 
were  in  direct  and  immediate  subordination  to  him,  left  no  spirits  con- 
ceivable but  those  in  rebellion  against  him,  the  absolutely  and  entirely 
evil ; this,  as  has  been  observed,  allowed  no  choice,  when  once  the  mir- 
acle was*  adjudged  to  be  not  from  God,  but  to  attribute  it  to  Satan. 
There  was  nothing  between ; it  was  from  heaven,  or  if  not  from  heaven, 
from  hell.  But  it  was  otherwise  in  the  heathen  world,  and  with  the 
“ gods  many”  of  polytheism.  So  long  as  these  lived  in  the  minds  of 
men,  the  argument  from  the  miracles  was  easily  evaded.  Tor,  what 
did  they  prove  at  the  uttermost  with  regard  to  the  author  of  them  ? 
What  but  that  a god,  it  might  be  one  of  the  higher,  or  it  might  be  one 
of  the  middle  powers,  the  5a/jxo veg,  the  intermediate  deities,  wras  with 
him'?  What  was  there,  men  replied,  in  this,  which  justified  the  demand 
of  an  absolute  obedience  upon  their  parts  ? Wherefore  should  they  yield 
exclusive  allegiance  to  him  that  wrought  these  works  ? The  gods  had 
spoken  often  by  others  also — had  equipped  them  with  powers  equal  to  or 
greater  than  those  claimed  by  his  disciples  for  Jesus ; yet  no  man  there- 
fore demanded  for  them  that  they  should  be  recognized  as  absolute  lords 

49;  L 8,  c.  9;  Augustine,  De  Cons.  Evang.,  1.  1,  cc.  9 — 11 ; Jerome,  Brev.  in  Psal., 
81,  in  fine ; Arnobius,  Adv.  Gen.,  1. 1,  c.  43,  who  brings  in  this  as  one  of  the  calumnies 
of  the  heathen  against  the  Lord : Magus  fuit,  clandestinis  artibus  omnia  ilia  perfecit : 
ASgyptiorum  ex  adytis  angelorum  potentium  nomina  et  remotas  furatus  est  discipli- 
nas;  cf.  also  c.  53.  This  charge  of  fetching  his  magical  skill  fx-om  Egypt,  which  Cel- 
sus in  like  manner  takes  up,  (Origen,  Con.  Cels.,  1.  1,  cc.  28,  38 ; see  also  Eusebius, 
Bern.  Evang.,  L 3,  c.  6,)  betrays  at  once  the  Jewish  origin  of  the  accusation.  It  is 
evermore  repeated  in  Jewish  books.  Egypt,  say  they,  was  the  natural  home  of 
magic,  so  that  if  the  magic  of  the  world  were  divided  into  ten  parts,  Egypt  would 
possess  nine;  and  there,  even  as  the  Christian  histories  confess,  Jesis  resided  two 
years.  (Eisexmengee’s  Entdeckt.  Judenth,  v.  1,  pp.  149,  166.) 


56 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


of  the  destinies  of  men.  Esculapius  performed  wonderful  cures  ; Apol 
lonius  went  about  the  world  healing  the  sick,  expelling  demons,  raising 
the  dead ; Aristeas  disappeared  from  the  earth  in  as  marvellous  a way 
as  the  author  of  the  Christian  faith : yet  no  man  built  upon  these  won- 
ders a superstructure  such  as  that  which  the  Christians  built  upon  the 
wonders  of  Christ.* 

Thus  Celsus,  as  we  learn  from  more  than  one  passage  in  Origen’s 
reply,  brings  forward  now  the  mythic  personages  of  antiquity,  now  the 
magicians  of  a later  date,  though  apparently  with  no  very  distinct  pur- 
pose in  his  mind,  but  only  with  the  feeling  that  somehow  or  other  he  can 
play  them  off  against  the  divine  Author  of  our  religion,  and  undermine  his 
claims  to  the  allegiance  of  men.  For  it  certainly  remains  a question  how 
much  credence  he  gave  himself  to  the  miracles  which  he  adduced  ;f  and 
whether,  sharing  the  almost  universal  skepticism  of  the  educated  classes 
of  his  day,  he  did  not  rather  mean  that  all  should  fall,  than  that  all 
should  stand  together.  Hierocles,  again,  governor  of  Bithynia,  who  is 
accused  of  being  a chief  instigator  of  the  cruelties  under  Diocletian,  and 
who,  if  the  charge  be  just,  wielded  arms  of  unrighteousness,  on  both 
hands  against  the  Christian  faith,  the  persecutor’s  sword,  and  the  libel- 
ler’s pen — followed  in  the  same  line.  His  book  we  know  from  the  ex- 
tracts in  the  answer  of  Eusebius,  and  the  course  of  his  principal  argu- 
ments. From  this  answer  it  appears  that,  having  recounted  various 
miracles  wrought,  as  he  affirms,  by  Apollonius,  he  proceeds  thus : “Yet 
do  we  not  account  him  who  has  done  such  things,  for  a god,  only  for  a 
man  beloved  of  the  gods : while  the  Christians  on  the  contrary,  on  ac- 
count of  a few  insignificant  wonder-works,  proclaim  their  Jesus  for  a 
gDd.”|  He  presently,  it  is  true,  shifts  his  arguments,  and  no  longer  al- 


* The  existence  of  false  cycles  of  miracles  should  no  more  cast  a suspicion  upon 
all,  or  cause  to  doubt  those  which  present  themselves  with  marks  of  the  true,  than 
the  appearance  of  a parhelion  forerunning  the  sun  cause  us  to  deny  that  he  was 
travelling  up  from  beneath  the  horizon,  for  which  rather  it  is  an  evidence.  The  false 
money  passes,  not  because  there  is  nothing  better  and  therefore  all  have  consented 
to  receive  it,  but  because  there  is  a good  money,  under  color  of  which  the  false  is  ac- 
cepted. Thus  is  it  with  the  longing  which  has  existed  “at  all  times  and  in  all  ages 
after  some  power  which  is  not  circumscribed  by  the  rules  of  ordinary  visible  experi- 
ence, but  which  is  superior  to  these  rules  and  can  transgress  them.”  The  mythic 
narrations  in  which  such  longings  find  an  apparently  historic  clothing  and  utterance, 
so  far  from  being  eyed  with  suspicion,  should  be  most  welcome  to  the  Christian  in- 
quirer. The  enemies  of  the  faith  will  of  course  parade  these  shadows,  in  the  hopes 
of  making  us  believe  that  our  substance  is  a shadow  also ; but  they  are  worse  than 
simple  whe  are  cozened  by  so  palpable  a fraud. 

f Origen  {Con.  Cels .,  1.  3,  c.  22)  charges  him  with  not  believing  them. 

\ In  the  tame  way  Arnobius  (Adi).  Gen.,  1.  1,  c.  48)  brings  in  the  heathen  adve? 


THE  ASSAULTS  OX  THE  MIRACLES. 


57 


lows  the  miracles,  denying  only  the  conclusions  drawn  from  then  ; but 
rather  denies  that  they  have  any  credible  attestation : in  his  blind  hate, 
setting  them  in  this  respect  beneath  the  miracles  of  Apollonius,  which 
this  “ lover  of  truth,”*  for  under  that  name  he  writes,  declares  to  be  far 
more  worthily  attested. 

This  Apollonius,  (of  Tyana  in  Cappadocia.)  whose  historical  exist- 
ence there  does  not  seem  any  reason  to  call  in  question,  was  probably 
bom  about  the  time  of  the  birth . of  Christ,  and  lived  as  far  as  into  the 
reign  of  Nerva,  a.d.  97.  Save  two  or  three  isolated  notices  of  an  earlier 
date,  the  only  record  which  we  have  of  him  is  a Life  written  by  Philo- 
stratus,  a rhetorician  of  the  second  century,  professing  to  be  founded  on 
cotemporary  documents,  yet  every  where  betraying  its  unhistorie  char- 
acter. It  is  in  fact  a philosophic  romance,  in  which  the  revival  and  re- 
action of  paganism  in  the  second  century  is  portrayed.  Yet  was  not 
that  Life  written,  I believe,  with  any  directly  hostile  purpose  against 
Christianity,  but  only  to  prove  that  they  of  the  old  faith  had  their  mighty 
wonder-worker  as  well.  It  was  composed,  indeed,  as  seems  to  me  per- 
fectly clear,  with  an  eye  to  the  life  of  our  Lord ; the  parallels  are  too 
remarkable  to  have  been  the  effect  of  chance  ;f  in  a certain  sense  also 
in  emulation  and  rivalry yet  not  in  hostile  opposition,  not  as  implying 
this  was  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  not  that ; nor  yet,  as  some  of  Lucian’s 
works,  in  a mocking  irony  of  the  things  which  are  written  concerning 
the  Lord.  | This  later  use  which  has  often  been  made  of  the  book,  must 
not  be  confounded  with  its  original  purpose,  which  was  certainly  differ- 
ent. The  first,  I believe,  who  so  used  it,  was  Charles  Blount, § one  of 
the  earlier  English  Deists.  And  passing  over  some  other  insignificant 
endeavors  to  make  the  book  tell  against  revealed  religion,  endeavors  in 
which  the  feeble  hand,  however  inspired  by  hate,  yet  wanted  strength 


sary  saying  it  is  idle  to  make  these  claims  (frustra  tantum  arrogas  Christo)  on  the 
score  of  the  miracles,  when  so  many  others  have  done  the  like. 

* Philalethes. 

f See,  for  instance,  upon  the  raising  of  the  widow’s  son,  the  parallel  miracle  which 
I have  adduced  from  the  life  of  Apollonius.  The  above  is  Baur’s  conclusion  in  his 
instructive  little  treatise,  Apollonius  von  Tyana  und  Chnstus. 

\ His  Philopseudes , for  instance,  and  his  Vera  Historia.  Thus  only  the  latter  half 
of  this  judgment  of  Huet’s  (Pern.  JEvang-,  prop.  9,  c.  141)  seems  to  me  to  be  true : Id 
spectasse  imprimis  videtur  Pbilostratus,  ut  invalescentem  jam  Christi  fidem  ac  doc- 
trinam  deprimeret,  opposito  hoc  omnis  doctrinae,  sanctitatis,  ac  mirificae  virtutis  foeneo 
simulacro.  Itaque  ad  Christi  exemplar  hanc  expressit  effigiem,  et  pleraque  ex  Christi 
Jesu  historia  Apollouio  accommodavit,  ne  quid  Ethnici  Christianis  invidere  possent 

§ In  his  now  exceedingly  scarce  translation,  with  notes,  of  The  two  first  Books 
of  Philostratus,  London,  1680,  with  this  significant  motto  from  Seneca.  Cum  omnia 
in  incerto  sint,  fave  tibi,  et  crede  quod  mavis. 


58 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


and  skill  to  launch  the  dart,  we  come  to  Wieland’s  Agathodcemon , i:; 
which  neither  malice  nor  dexterity  were  wanting,  and  which,  professing 
to  explain  upon  natural  grounds  the  miracles  of  Apollonius,  yet  unques- 
tionably points  throughout  at  one  greater  than  the  wonder-worker  of 
Tyana,  with  a hardly  suppressed  de  te  fabula  narratur  running  through 
the  whole.* 

The  arguments  drawn  from  these  parallels,  as  far  as  they  were  ad- 
duced in  good  faith  and  in  earnest,  have,  of  course,  perished  with  the 
perishing  of  polytheism  from  the  minds  of  men,  even  the  minds  of  those 
who  have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the  faith  of  Christ.  Other  mira- 
cles can  no  longer  be  played  off  against  his  miracles ; the  choice  re- 
mains between  these  or  none. 

3.  The  Pantheistic.  (Spinoza.) 

These  two  classes  of  assailants  of  the  Scripture  miracles,  the  Jewish 
and  the  heathen,  allowed  the  miracles  themselves  to  stand  unquestioned 
as  facts,  but  either  challenged  their  source,  or  denied  the  consequences 
which  were  drawn  from  them  by  the  Church.  Not  so  the  pantheistic 
deniers  of  the  miracles,  who  assailed  them  not  as  being  of  the  devil,  not 
as  insufficient  proofs  of  Christ’s  absolute  claims  of  lordship  ; but  cut  at 
their  very  root,  denying  that  any  miracle  was  possible,  since  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  idea  of  God.  For  these  opponents  of  the  truth  Spinoza 
may  be  said,  in  modern  times,  to  bear  the  word ; the  view  is  so  connected 
with  his  name,  that  it  will  be  well  to  hear  the  objection  as  he  has  uttered 
it.  That  objection  is  indeed  only  the  necessary  consequence  of  his  phi- 
losophical system.  Now  the  first  temptation  on  making  acquaintance 
with  that  system  is  to  contemplate  it  as  a mere  and  sheer  atheism;  and 
such  has  ever  been  the  ordinary  charge  against  it ; nor  in  studying  his 
works  is  it  always  easy  to  persuade  one’s  self  that  it  is  any  thing  higher, 
or  that  the  various  passages  in  which  he  himself  assumes  it  as  something 
different,  are  more  than  inconsequent  statements,  with  which  he  seeks  to 
blind  the  eyes  of  others,  and  to  avert  the  odium  of  this  charge  of  atheism 
from  himself.  And  yet  atheism  it  is  not,  nor  is  it  even  a material,  how- 

* The  work  of  Philostratus  has  been  used  with  exactly  an  opposite  aim  by  Chris- 
tian apologists,  namely,  to  bring  out,  by  comparison  with  the  best  which  heathenism 
could  offer,  the  surpassing  glory  of  Christ.  Cudworth,  in  his  Intellectual  System,  b.  4, 
c.  15,  occupies  himself  at  a considerable  length  with  Apollonius.  Here  may  probably 
have  been  the  motive  to  Blount’s  book,  which  only  followed  two  years  after  the 
publication  of  Cudworth’s  great  work.  Henry  More,  too,  in  his  Mystery  of  Godliness, 
b.  4,  cc.  9 — 12,  compares  at  large  the  miracles  of  Christ  with  those  of  Apollonius. 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


59 


ever  it  may  be  a formal,  pantheism.  All  justice  requires  it  to  be  ac- 
knowledged that  he  does  not  bring  down  and  resolve  God  into  nature, 
but  rather  takes  up  and  loses  nature  in  God.  It  is  only  man  whom  he 
submits  to  a blind  fate,  and  for  whom  he  changes,  as  indeed  for  him  he 
does,  all  ethics  into  physics.  But  the  idea  of  freedom,  as  regards  God, 
is  saved  ; since,  however,  he  affirms  him  immanent  in  nature  and  not 
transcending  it,  this  is  only  because  he  has  himself  chosen  these  laws  of 
nature  as  the  one  unchangeable  manner  of  his  working,  and  constituted 
them  in  his  wisdom  so  elastic,  that  they  shall  prove  under  every  circum- 
stance and  in  every  need,  the  adequate  organs  and  servants  of  his  will, 
lie  is  not  bound  to  nature  otherwise  than  by  that,  his  own  will ; the  laws 
which  limit  him  are.  of  his  own  imposing ; the  necessity  which  binds  him 
to  them  is  not  the  necessity  of  any  absolute  fate,  but  of  the  highest  fit- 
ness. Still,  however,  Spinoza  does  affirm  such  a necessity,  and  thus 
excludes  the  possibility  of  any  revelation,  whereof  the  very  essence  is 
that  it  is  a new  beginning,  a new  unfolding  by  God  of  himself  to  man, 
and  especially  excludes  the  miracle,  which  is  itself  at  once  the  accom- 
paniment, and  itself  a constituent  part,  of  a revelation. 

It  would  not  be  profitable  to  say  here  more  than  a few  words  on  the 
especial  charges  which  he  brings  against  the  miracle,  as  lowering,  and 
unworthy  of,  the  idea  of  God.  They  are  but  an  application  to  a par- 
ticular point  of  the  same  charges  wdiich  he  brings  against  all  revelation, 
namely,  that  to  conceive  any  such  is  a dishonoring,  and  a casting  a 
slight  upon,  God’s  great  original  revelation  of  himself  in  nature  and  in 
man ; an  arguing  that  of  such  imperfection  and  incompleteness,  as  that 
it  needed  the  author  of  the  world’s  laws  to  interfere  in  aid  of  those 
laws,  lest  they  should  prove  utterly  inadequate  to  his  purposes.*  And 
thus,  as  regards  the  miracle  in  particular,  he  finds  fault  with  it  as  a 
bringing  in  of  disorder  into  that  creation,  of  which  the  only  idea  worthy 
of  God  is  that  of  an  unchangeable  order ; it  is  a making  God  to  contra- 
dict himself,  for  the  law  which  was  violated  by  the  miracle  is  as  much 
God’s  lawr  as  the  miracle  which  violated  it.  The  answer  to  this  objec- 
tion has  been  already  anticipated;  it  has  been  already  sought  to  be 
- shown  that  the  miracle  is  not  a discord  in  nature,  but  the  coming  in 
of  a higher  harmony  ; not  disorder,  but  instead  of  the  order  of  earth,  the 

* Tract  Tlieol.  Pol.,  c.  6 : Nam  cum  virtus  et  potentia  naturae  sit  ipsa  Dei  virtus 
et  potentia,  leges  autem  et  regulae  naturae  ipsa  Dei  decreta,  omnino  credendum  est, 
potentiam  naturae  infinitam  esse,  ejusque  leges  adeo  latas,  ut  ad  omnia  quae  et  ab 
ipso  divino  intellectu  concipiuntur,  se  extendaint ; alias  enim  quid  aliud  statuitur, 
.quam  quod  Deus  naturam  adeo  impotentem  creaverit,  ejusque  leges  et  regulas  adeo 
steriles  statuerit,  ut  saepe  de  novo  ei  subvenire  cogatur,  si  earn  conservatam  vult,  et 
ut  res  ex  voto  succedant,  quod  san&  a ratione  alienissimuir  esse  existimo. 


60 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIEACLES. 


order  of  heaven ; not  the  violation  of  law,  but  that  which  continually 
even  in  this  natural  world,  is  taking  place,  the  comprehension  of  a 
lower  law  by  a higher;  in  this  case  the  comprehension  of  a lower  natural, 
by  a higher  spiritual  law;  with  only  the  modifications  of  the  lower, 
necessarily  consequent  upon  this. 

Then,  again,  when  he  charges  the  miracle  with  resting  on  a false 
assumption  of  the  position  which  man  occupies  in  the  universe,  as  flat- 
tering the  notion  that  nature  is  to  serve  him,  he  not  to  bow  to  nature,  it  is 
most  true  that  it  does  rest  on  this  assumption.  But  this  were  only  a charge 
which  would  tell  against  it,  supposing  that  true,  which  so  far  from 
being  truth,  is  indeed  his  first  great  falsehood  of  all,  namely,  the  substitu- 
tion of  a God  of  nature,  in  place  of  a God  of  men.  If  God  be  indeed 
only  or  chiefly  the  God  of  nature,  and  not  in  a paramount  sense  the  Go*d 
of  grace,  the  God  of  men,  if  nature  be  indeed  the  highest,  and  man  only 
created  as  furniture  for  this  planet,  it  were  indeed  absurd  and  inconceiva- 
ble that  the  higher  should  serve,  or  give  place  to,  or  fall  into  the  order  of, 
the  lower.  But  if,  upon  the  other  hand,  man  is  the  end  and  object  of  all, 
if  he  be  indeed  the  vicegerent  of  the  Highest,  the  image  of  God,  if  this 
world  and  all  that  belongs  to  it  be  but  a workshop  for  the  training  of 
men,  only  having  a worth  and  meaning  when  so  considered,  then  that 
the  lower  should  serve,  and,  where  need  was,  give  way  to  the  highest, 
this  were  only  beforehand  to  be  expected.* 

Here,  as  is  so  often  the  case,  something  much  behind  the  miracle, 
something  much  earlier  in  our  view  of  the  relations  between  God  and 
his  creatures,  has  already  determined  whether  we  should  accept  or  re- 
ject it,  and  this,  long  before  we  have  arrived  at  the  consideration  of  this 
specific  matter. 


4.  The  Skeptical,  (Hume.) 

While  Spinoza  rested  his  objection  to  the  miracles  on  the  ground 
that  the  everlasting  laws  of  the  universe  left  no  room  for  such,  and 
while  the  form  therefore  which  the  question  in  debate  assumed  in  his 
hands  was  this,  Are  miracles  (objectively)  possible  1 Hume,  a legitimate 
child  and  pupil  of  the  empiric  philosophy  of  Locke,  started  his  objection 
in  altogether  a different  shape,  namely,  in  this,  Are  miracles  (subjec- 
tively) credible  'l  He  is  in  fact  the  skeptic,  which, — taking  the  word  in 

* They  are  the  truly  wise,  he  says,  {Tract.  Theol.  Pol.,  c.  6,)  who  aim  not  at  this,  ut 
natura  iis,  sed  contra  ut  ipsi  naturae  pareant,  utpote  qui  cert&  sciunt,  Deum  naturam  di- . 
rigere  prout  ejus  leges  universales,  non  autem  prout  humanae  naturae  particulars  leges 
exigunt,  adeoque  Deum  non  solius  humani  generis,  sed  totius  naturae  rationem  habere. 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


61 


its  more  accurate  sense,  not  as  a denier  of  the  truths  of  Christianity,  but 
a doubter  of  the  possibility  of  arriving  at  any  absolute  truth, — the  other 
is  as  far  as  possible  from  being.  To  this  question  his  answer  is  in  the 
negative;  or  rather,  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  philosophy  which  leaves 
every  thing  in  uncertainty,  It  is  always  more  probable  that  a miracle  is 
false  than  true ; it  can  therefore  in  no  case  prove  any  thing  else,  since 
it  is  itself  incapable  of  proof, — which  thus  he  proceeds  to  show.  In 
every  case,  he  observes,  of  conflicting  evidence,  we  weigh  the  evidence 
for  and  against  the  alleged  facts,  and  give  our  faith  to  that  side  upon 
which  the  evidence  preponderates,  with  an  amount  of  confidence  propor- 
tioned, not  to  the  whole  amount  of  evidence  in  its  favor,  but  to  the  differ- 
ence which  remains  after  subtracting  the  evidence  against  it.  Thus,  if 
the  evidence  on  the  side  of  A might  be  set  as  = 20,  and»  that  on  the 
side  of  B as  = 15,  then  our  faith  in  A would  remain  20  — 15  = 5 ; we 
give  our  faith  upon  the  side  on  which  a balance  of  probabilities  remains. 
But  every  miracle  is  a case  of  conflicting  evidence.  In  its  favor  is  the 
evidence  of  the  attesting  witnesses ; against  it  the  testimony  of  all  expe- 
rience which  has  gone  before,  and  which  witnesses  for  an  unbroken 
order  of  nature.  When  we  come  to  balance  these  against  one  another, 
the  only  case  in  which  the  evidence  for  the  miracle  could  be  admitted 
as  prevailing,  would  be  that  in  which  the  falseness  or  error  of  the  attesting 
witnesses  would  be  a greater  miracle  than  the  miracle  which  they  affirm. 
But  no  such  case  can  occur.  The  evidence  against  a miracle  having 
taken  place  is  as  complete  as  can  be  conceived ; even  were  the  evidence 
in  its  favor  as  complete,  it  would  only  be  proof  against  proof,  and  abso- 
lute suspension  of  judgment  would  be  the  wise  man’s  part.  But  further, 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  miracles  never  makes  claim  to  any  such 
completeness.  It  is  always  more  likely  that  the  attesting  witnesses  were 
deceived,  or  were  willing  to  deceive,  than  that  the  miracle  took  place. 
For,  nowever  many  they  may  be,  they  are  always  but  a few  compared  with 
the  multitudes  who  attest  a fact  which  excludes  their  fact,  namely,  the 
uninterrupted  succession  of  a natural  order  in  the  world,  and  those  few 
submitted  to  divers  warping  influences,  from  which  the  others,  nature’s 
witnesses,  are  altogether  free.  Therefore  there  is  no  case  in  which  the 
evidence  for  any  one  miracle  is  able  to  outweigh  the  d priori  evidence 
which  is  against  all  miracles.  Such  is  the  conclusion  at  which  he  ar- 
rives. The  argument,  it  will  be  seen,  is  skeptical  throughout.  Hume 
does  not,  like  Spinoza,  absolutely  deny  the  miracle,  only  that  we  can 
ever  be  convinced  of  one.  Of  two  propositions  or  assertions  that  may  be 
true  which  has  the  least  evidence  to  support  it ; but  according  to  the 
necessary  constitution  of  our  being,  we  must  give  our  adherence  to  that 


62 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


which  presents  itself  to  us  with  the  largest  amount  of  evidence  in  its 
favor. 

Here  again,  as  on  a former  occasion,  so  long  as  we  abide  in  the  region 
of  nature,  miraculous  and  improbable,  miraculous  and  incredible,  may 
be  allowed  to  remain  convertible  terms.  But  once  lift  up  the  whole  dis- 
cussion into  a higher  region,  once  acknowledge  aught  higher  than 
nature,  a kingdom  of  God,  and  men  the  intended  denizens  of  it,  and  the 
whole  argument  loses  its  strength  and  the  force  of  its  conclusions. 
Against  the  argument  from  experience  which  tells  against  the  miracle, 
is  to  be  set,  not,  as  Hume  asserts,  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses,  which 
it  is  quite  true  can  in  no  case  itself  be  complete  and  of  itself  sufficient, 
but  this,  plus  the  anterior  probability  that  God,  calling  men  to  live  above 
nature  and  sense,  would  in  this  manner  reveal  himself  as  the  Lord 
paramount  of  nature,  the  breaker  through  and  slighter  of  the  apparitions 
of  sense;  plus  also  the  testimony  which  the  particular  miracle  by  its 
nature,  its  fitness,  the  glory  of  its  circumstances,  its  intimate  coherence 
as  a redemptive  act  with  the  personality  of  the  doer,  in  Coleridge’s 
words,  “its  exact  accordance  with  the  ideal  of  a true  miracle  is  the 
reason,”  gives  to  the  conscience  that  it  is  a divine  work.  The  moral 
probabilities  Hume  has  altogether  overlooked  and  left  out  of  account, 
and  when  they  are  admitted, — dynamic  in  the  midst  of  his  merely  me- 
chanic forces, — they  disturb  and  indeed  utterly  overbear  and  destroy 
them.  His  argument  is  as  that  fabled  giant,  unconquerable  so  long  as 
it  is  permitted  to  rest  upon  the  earth  out  of  which  it  sprung ; but  easily 
destroyed  when  once  it  is  lifted  into  a higher  world.  It  is  not,  as  Hume 
would  fain  have  us  to  believe,  solely  an  intellectual  question ; but  it  is  in 
fact  the  moral  condition  of  men  which  will  ultimately  determine  whether 
they  will  believe  the  Scripture  miracles  or  not ; — this,  and  not  the  exact 
balance  of  argument  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  which  will  cause  this 
scale  or  that  to  kick  the  beam. 

He  who  already  counts  it  likely  that  God  will  interfere  for  the  higher 
welfare  of  men, — who  believes  that  there  is  a nobler  world-order  than 
that  in  which  we  live  and  move,  and  that  it  would  be  the  blessing  of 
blessings  for  that  nobler  to  intrude  into  and  to  make  itself  felt  in  the  region 
of  this  lower,  who  has  found  that  here  in  this  world  we  are  bound  by 
heavy  laws  of  nature,  of  sin,  of  death,  which  no  powers  that  we  now 
possess  can  break,  yet  which  must  be  broker  if  we  are  truly  to  live — 
he  will  not  find  it  hard  to  believe  the  great  miracle,  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  God  in  the  flesh,  and  his  declaration  as  the  Son  of  God  with 
power  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ; because  all  the  deepest  de- 
sires and  longings  of  his  heart  have  yearned  after  such  a deliverer, 
however  little  he  may  have  been  able  even  to  dream  of  so  glorious  a 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


63 


fulfilment  of  those  longings.  And  as  he  believes  that  greatest  miracle, 
so  will  he  believe  all  other  miracles,  which,  as  satellites  of  a lesser  bright- 
ness, naturally  wait  on  and  cluster  round  and  draw  their  lustre  from  the 
central  brightness  of  that  one.  He,  upon  the  other  hand,  to  whom  this 
world  is  all,  who  has  lost  all  sense  of  a higher  world  with  which  it 
must  once  have  stood  connected,  who  is  disturbed  with  no  longings  for 
aught  nobler  than  it  gives,  to  whom  “ the  kingdom  of  God”  is  an  unin- 
telligible phrase,  he  will  resist,  by  an  intellectual  theory  if  he  can,  or  if 
not  by  that,  by  instinct,  the  miracle.  Every  thing  that  is  in  him  predis- 
poses him  to  disbelieve  it,  and  the  doctrines  which  it  seals.  To  him 
who  denies  thus  any  final  causes,  who  does  not  believe  that  humanity  is 
being  carried  forward  under  a mightier  leading  than  its  own  to  a certain 
and  that  a glorious  end,  to  whom  the  history  of  the  world  and  of  man  is 
but  the  history  of  a bark,  storm-tost  long,  and  to  be  wrecked  at  last, 
these  moral  probabilities  are  no  payabilities ; and  this  being  so,  we 
should  learn  betimes  how  futile  it  is  to  argue  with  men  about  our  faith, 
who  are  the  deniers  of  all  upon  which  any  faith  can  be  built.* 


5.  The  Miracles  only  relatively  Miraculous.  (Schleiermacher.) 

Another  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  miraculous  element  in  the  miracle, 
and  one  often  united  with  Spinoza’s  a priori  argument  against  it,f  ex- 
plaining the  phenomenon  of  an  apparent  miracle  after  that  has  shown 
that  a real  one  was  impossible,  has  been  the  following.  These  works,  it 
has  been  said,  were  relative  miracles, — miracles,  in  other  words,  for  those 
in  regard  of  whom  they  were  first  done, — as  when  a savage  believes 
that  a telescope  has  the  power  of  bringing  the  far  instantaneously  near, — 
but  no  miracles  in  themselves,  being  but  in  truth  the  anticipation  of  dis- 
coveries in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  the  works  of  one  who  had  penetrated 
deeper  into  her  mysteries  than  the  men  of  his  own  age,  and  therefore 
could  wield  powers  which  were  unknown,  and  bring  about  results  which, 
were  inexplicable  to  them.J  It  must  be  evident  to  the  least  thoughtful, 
that  however  the  fact  may  be  sought  to  be  disguised,  the  miracle  does 

* Augustine  ( Be  Util.  Cred.,  c.  16):  Si  enim  Dei  providentia  non  preesidet  rebus 
humanis,  nihil  est  de  religione  satagendum.  See  some  valuable  remarks  on  Hume 
and  on  his  position  in  Mill’s  Logic,  v.  2,  p.  187,  2nd  edit. 

f As  by  Spinoza  himself,  Ep.  23  : Rogare  mihi  liceat  an  nos  homunciones  tantam 
naturm  cognitionem  habeamus,  ut  determinare  possimus,  quousque  ejus  vis  et  potentia 
se  extendit,  et  quid  ejus  vim  superat  ? 

X Thus  Hase  ( Leben  Jem , p.  108) : Sie  sind  zwar  nothwendig  begriffen  im  Natur- 
zusammenhange,  daher  nach  diesem  uberall  zu  forschen  ist,  aber  sie  uberschritten  weit 
die  Kenntniss  und  Kraft  der  Zeitgenossen. 


64 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


thus  become  no  miracle,* * * §  and  the  doer  of  it  can  no  longer  be  recognized 
as  one  commanding  nature  in  a way  specifically  different  from  other 
men,  but  only  as  one  who  has  a clearer  or  earlier  insight  than  others 
into  her  laws  and  the  springs  of  her  power.  It  is  strange  that  any 
should  ever  have  been  satisfied  with  this  statement,  which  is  indeed  only 
a decently  veiled  denial  of  the  miracle  altogether,  f For  thus  it  has  no 
longer  an  eternal  significance ; it  is  no  longer  a halo  which  is  to  sur- 
round the  head  of  its  worker  for  ever ; with  each  enlargement  of  men’s 
knowledge  of  nature  a star  in  his  crown  of  glory  is  extinguished,  till  at 
length  it  fades  altogether  into  the  light  of  common  day — nay,  rather  de- 
clares that  it  was  never  any  more  than  a deceitful  and  meteor  fire.  For 
it  implies  a serious  moral  charge  against  the  doer  of  these  works,  if  he 
vents  them  as  wonders,  as  acts  of  a higher  power  than  nature’s,  or 
allows  others  so  to  receive  them,  when  indeed  they  are  wrought  but 
according  to  her  ordinary  laws.  It  was  well  enough,  according  to  the 
spirit  in  which  he  was  working,  for  one  of  the  conquerors  of  the  New 
World  to  make  the  Indians,  whom  he  wished  to  terrify,  believe  that  in 
his  displeasure  with  them  he  would  at  a certain  hour  darken  the  moon, 
when  indeed  he  was  but  foreknowing  an  eclipse  of  that  orb  ; but  in  the 
kingdom  of  truth  to  use  artifices  like  these  were  but  by  lies  to  seek  to 
overturn  the  kingdom  of  lies.  J 

Schleiermacher§  endeavors  .so  to  guard  this  view  that  it  shall  not 

* Mirabile,  but  not  miraculum.  Augustine’s  definition  in  one  place,  {Be  Util. 
Cred.,  c.  16,)  Miraculum  voco  quicquid  arduum  aut  insolitum  supra  spem  vel  facul- 
tatem  mirantis  apparet,  is  plainly  faulty ; it  is  the  definition  of  the  mirabile,  not  of 
the  miraculum.  Aquinas  is  more  distinct  ( Summ . Theol .,  1.  1,  qu.  110,  art.  4):  Hon 
sufficit  ad  rationem  miraculi,  si  aliquid  fiat  praeter  ordinem  alicujus  naturae  particu- 
laris,  sic  enim  aliquis  miraculum  faceret  lapidem  sursum  projiciendo  ; ex  hoc  autem 
aliquid  dicitur  miraculum,  quod  fit  praeter  ordinem  totius  naturae  creatae,  quo  sensu 
solus  Deus  facit  miracula.  Hobis  enim  non  omnis  virtus  naturae  creatae  nota ; cum 
ergo  fit  aliquid  praeter  ordinem  naturae  creatae  nobis  notae  per  virtutem  creatam 
nobis  ignotam,  est  quidem  miraculum  quoad  nos,  sed  non  simpliciter. 

| J.  Muller  {Be  Mirac.  J.  G.  Nat.  et  Necess.,  par.  2,  p.  1)  well  characterizes  this 
stneme : Quid  vero?  num  de  miraculorum  necessitate  ordiamur  a notione  miraculi 
tollenda  ? Si  enim  ex  ea  sententia  mirabilia  Christi  opera  e propriis  naturae  viribua 
secundum  hujus  legem,  at  absconditum,  orta  sunt,  certum  et  constans  discrimen  haec 
inter  et  ilia,  quae  quotidie  in  nature  fieri  videmur,  remanet  nullum ; omnia  fluunt  et 
miscentur ; quae  rerum  natura  heri  gremio  suo  operuit,  aperit  hodie ; quae  etiam 
nunc  abscondita  sunt,  posthac  patebunt.  Si  vero,  quod  hodie  miraculum,  eras  non 
erit,  et  hodie  non  est,  sed  esse  tantum  videtur. 

% Plutarch  {Be  Bef.  Orac.,  c.  12)  mentions  exactly  the  same  trick  of  a Thessa- 
lian sorceress.  A late  writer  upon  the  rule  of  the  Jesuits  in  Paraguay  accuses  them 
of  using  artifices  of  the  like  kind  for  acquiring  and  maintaining  an  influence  over 
their  converts. 

§ Ber  Christi.  Glaube,  v.  1 p.  100;  v.  2,  p.  136. 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


65 


appear  an  entire  denial  of  the  miracles,  to  dress  it  out  and  prevent  its 
bareness  from  being  seen,  but  he  does  not  in  fact  lift  himself  above  it. 
Christ,  he  says,  had  not  merely  this  deeper  acquaintance  with  nature 
than  any  other  that  ever  lived,  but  stands  in  a more  inward  connection 
with  nature.  He  is  able  to  evoke,  as  from  her  hidden  recesses,  her 
most  inward  sanctuary,  powers  which  none  other  could ; although  still 
powers  which  lay  in  her  already.  These  facts,  which  seem  exceptional, 
were  deeply  laid  in  the  first  constitution  of  the  law ; and  now,  at  this 
turning  point  of  the  world’s  history,  by  the  providence  of  God,  who  had 
arranged  all  things  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  for  the  glory  of  his 
Son,  did  at  his  bidding  emerge.  Yet  single  and  without  analogy  as 
they  were,  they  belonged  to  the  law  as  truly  as  when  the  aloe  puts  forth 
its  flower,  or  is  said  to  put  it  forth,  once  in  its  hundred  years,  it  yet  does 
this  according  to  its  own  innermost  nature.  For  ninety  and  nine  years 
it  would  have  seemed  to  men  not  to  be  the  nature  of  the  plant  to  flower, 
yet  the  flowering  of  the  hundreth  year  is  only  the  coming  out  of  its 
truest  nature. 

We  see  in  this  scheme  that  attempt  to  reconcile  and  atone  between 
revelation  and  science,  which  was  the  great  purpose  of  all  Schleiermacher’s 
writings.  Yet  it  is  impossible  to  accept  the  reconciliation  which  he  of- 
fers ; as  it  is  really  made,  however  the  sacrifice  may  be  concealed,  alto- 
gether at  the  expense  of  the  miracle — which,  in  fact,  is  no  miracle,  if  it 
lay  in  nature  already,  if  it  was  not  a new  thing,  if  it  was  only  the  evok- 
ing of  old  and  latent  forces  in  nature,  not  the  bringing  in  of  the  new 
powers  of  a higher  world,  if  the  mysterious  processes  and  powers  by 
which  those  works  were  brought  about,  are  only  undiscovered,  not  undis- 
coverable,  by  the  efforts  of  human  inquiry. 

Augustine  has  sometimes  been  quoted  as  maintaining  this  scheme  of 
the  relatively  miraculous,  but  altogether  with  injustice.  It  is  quite  true 
that,  in  arguing  with  the  heathen,  he  does  demand  why  they  refuse  to 
give  credence  to  the  Scripture  miracles,  when  they  believe  so  much  that 
can  in  no  way  be  explained  by  any  laws  which  their  experience  gave 
them,  and  adduces  some  curious  but  actual,  and  some  also  entirely  fab- 
ulous, phenomena  of  the  natural  world,  such  as  fountains  cold  by  night 
and  hot  by  day — others  which  extinguished  a lighted  torch,  but  set  on 
fire  an  extinguished  one — stones  which,  once  kindled,  could  not  be 
quenched — magnets  which  attracted  iron,  and  other  wonders,  to  which 
he  and  they  gave  credence  alike.*  But  it  is  not  herein  his  meaning  to 
draw  down  the  miracles  to  a level  with  natural  appearances,  hitherto 
unexplained,  but  capable  of,  and  waiting  their  explanation.  Rather  in 


De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  21,  c.  5. 

9 


66 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


these  natural  appearances  he  sees  direct  interpositions  of  the  Divine 
Power ; he  does  not  reckon  that  any  added  knowledge  will  bring  them 
under  laws  of  human  experience,  and  therefore  he  lifts  them  up  to  a 
level  with  the  miracles.  He  did  not  merge  the  miracles  in  nature,  but 
drew  up  a portion  of  nature  into  the  region  of  the  miraculous.  However 
greatly  as  a natural  philosopher  he  may  have  oeen  here  at  fault,  yet  all 
extenuating  of  the  miracle  was  far  from  him ; indeed  he  ever  refers  it  to 
the  omnipotence  of  God  as  to  its  ultimate  ground.'5’' 

When  he  affirms  that  much  seems  to  be  against  nature,  but  nothing 
truly  is,  this  may  sound  at  first  like  the  same  statement  of  the  miracu- 
lous being  what  it  is  merely  in  relation  to  certain  persons  and  certain 
stages  of  our  knowledge  of  this  outward  world.  But  it  is  only  in  sound 
that  it  is  similar.  He  has  quite  a different  thought  of  nature  from  any 
that  will  allow  such  to  be  his  meaning.  Nature  is  for  him  but  the  out- 
ward expression  of  the  will  of  God ; and  all  which  he  affirms  is,  that 
God  never  can  be  contrary  to  God ; that  there  can  be  no  collision  of  his 
wills ; that  whatever  comes  in  is  as  true  an  order,  the  result  of  as  real 
a law,  as  that  which  gives  place  to  it ; and  this  must  needs  be,  since  it 
has  come  in  according  to  the  will  of  God,  which  will  is  itself  the  highest 
order,  and  law,  and  harmony,  f 


6.  The  Rationalistic.  (Paulus.) 

The  rise  of  rationalism — which  term  I use  for  convenience  sake,  and 
without  at  all  consenting  to  its  fitness,  for  it  is  as  absurd  a misnomer  as 
when  that  in  the  last  century  was  called  /ree-thinking,  which  was  as- 
suredly to  end  in  the  slavery  of  all  thought — the  rise  of  rationalism 
seems  to  have  been  in  this  manner ; — that  it  was  an  escape  from  the 
conclusions  of  mere  Deists  concerning  Christ’s  person  and  his  Word, 
upon  the  part  of  those  who  had  indeed  abandoned  the  true  faith  of  the 
Church  concerning  its  Head  ; yet  were  not  willing  to  give  up  the  last 
lingering  vestiges  of  their  respect  for  Holy  Scripture  and  for  him  of 
whom  Scripture  testified.  They  with  whom  this  system  grew  up  could 
no  longer  believe  the  miracles,  they  could  no  longer  believe  the  great 
miracle  in  which  all  other  are  easily  included,  a Son  of  God,  in  the 

* Be  Civ.  Dei,  L 21,  c.  1. 

f See  the  quotation  from  Augustine,  p.  21.  That  he  had  clearly  in  his  eye  the  es- 
sential property  of  a miracle,  how  it  should  be  the  coming  in  of  a new  power  of  God 
into  nature,  is  plain  from  innumerable  passages  such  as  this  (Be  Civ.  Bei,  1. 10,  c.  16): 
Miracula, ....  non  ea  dico  quse  intervallis  temporum  occultis  ipsius  mundi  caussis, 
verumtamen  sub  divina  providentia  constitutis  et  ordinatis  monstrosa  contingunt 
quales  sunt  inusitati  partus  animalium,  et  coelo  terrique  rerum  insolite  facies. 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES, 


6? 

Church’s  sense  of  the  words ; they,  too,  were  obliged  to  fall  in  with  the 
first  principles  of  the  infidel  adversary,  that  any  who  professed  to  accom- 
plish miracles  was  either  self-deceived  or  a deceiver,  even  as  they  who 
recorded  such  as  having  happened  stood  in  the  same  dilemma. 

But  what  if  it  could  be  shown  that  Christ  never  professed  to  do  any 
miracles,  nor  the  sacred  historians  to  record  any  ? if  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  sacred  narratives,  rightly  read,  were  against  any  such  supposi- 
tion, and  that  it  was  only  the  lovers  of,  and  cravers  after,  the  marvellous, 
who  had  found  any  miracles  there  ; — the  books  themselves  having  been 
intended  to  record  merely  natural  events?  Were  not  this  an  escape 
from  the  whole  difficulty?  The  divine,  it  is  true,  in  these  narratives 
would  disappear ; that  however  they  did  not  desire  to  save ; that  they 
had  already  given  up  : but  the  human  would  be  vindicated ; the  good 
faith,  the  honesty,  the  entire  credibility  of  the  Scripture  historians,  would 
stand  fast.  And  in  Christ  himself  there  would  be  still  that  to  which  they 
could  look  up  with  reverence  and  love ; they  could  still  believe  in  him 
as  the  truthful  founder  of  a religion  which  they  did  not  desire  to  re- 
nounce altogether.  No  longer  being,  as  the  Church  declared  him,  the 
worker  of  wonders,  clothed  with  power  from  on  high,  nor  professing  to 
be  that  which  he  was  not,  as  the  blasphemers  affirmed,  he  would  still 
abide  for  them  in  the  fulness  of  his  beneficent  activity,  as  he  went  up 
and  down  the  world,  healing  and  blessing,  though  with  only  the  same 
means  which  other  men  had  at  command. 

Their  attempt  was  certainly  a bold  one ; to  suffer  the  sacred  text  to 
stand,  and  yet  to  find  no  miracles  in  it,  did  appear  a hopeless  task ; for 
this  is  that  which  altogether  distinguishes  this  system  from  later  mythic 
theories,  that  it  does  accept  the  New  Testament  as  entirely  historic ; it 
does  appeal  to  the  word  of  Scripture  as  the  ground  and  proof  of  its  asser- 
tions ; its  great  assertion  being  that  the  Evangelists  did  not  intend  to  re- 
late miracles,  but  ordinary  facts  of  every-day  experience,  works  done  by 
Jesus,  now  of  friendship  and  humanity,  now  of  medical  skill,  now  also  of 
chance  and  good  fortune,  or  other  actions  which,  from  one  cause  or 
other,  seemed  to  them  of  sufficient  significance  to  be  worth  recording. 
Thus  Christ,  they  say,  did  not  heal  an  impotent  man  at  Bethesda,  but 
only  detected  an  impostor ; he  did  not  change  water  into  wine  at  Cana, 
but  brought  in  a new  supply  of  wine  when  that  of  the  house  was  ex- 
hausted ; he  did  not  multiply  the  loaves,  but,  distributing  his  own  and 
his  disciples’  little  store,  set  an  example  of  liberality  which  was  quickly 
followed  by  others  who  had  like  stores,  and  in  this  way  there  was  suffi- 
cient for  all.  He  did  not  cure  blindness  otherwise  than  any  skilful 
oculist  might  do  it ; — which  indeed,  they  observe,  is  clear  ; for  with  iiis 
own  lips  he  declared  that  he  needed  light  for  so  delicate  an  operation — 


68 


THE  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  MIRACLES. 


“ I must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day  ; the  night 
cometh  when  no  man  can  work (John  ix.  4 ;)  he  did  not  walk  on  the 
sea,  but  on  the  shore ; he  did  not  tell  Peter  to  find  a piece  of  money  in 
the  fish’s  mouth,  but  to  catch  as  many  fish  as  would  sell  for  that  money ; 
he  did  not  raise  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  but  guessed,  from  the  nature  of 
his  disease,  that  he  was  only  in  a swoon,  and  happily  found  it  so. 

This  entire  scheme,  which  many  had  already  tried  here  and  there, 
but  which  first  appeared  full  blown  and  consistently  carried  through  in 
the  Commentary  of  Dr.  Paulus,*  did  not  long  survive  in  its  first  vigor. 
It  perished  under  blows  received  from  many  quarters  ; for,  not  to  speak 
of  a reviving  faith  in  the  hearts  of  many,  that  God  could  do  more  than 
man  could  understand,  even  the  children  of  this  world  directed  against 
it  the  keenest  shafts  of  their  ridicule.  Every  philologist,  nay,  every 
man  who  believed  that  language  had  any  laws,  was  its  natural  enemy, 
for  it  stood  only  by  the  violation  of  all  these  laws.  Even  the  very  ad- 
vance of  unbelief  was  fatal  to  it,  for  in  it  there  was  a slight  lingering 
respect  to  the  W ord  of  God  ; moved  by  which  respect  it  sought  forcibly 
to  bring  that  W ord  into  harmony  with  its  theory,  as  a better  alternative 
than  the  renouncing  the  authority  of  that  Word  altogether.  But  when 
men  arose,  who  did  not  shrink  from  the  other  alternative,  who  had  no 
desire  to  hold  by  that  Word  at  all,  then  there  was  nothing  to  hinder 
them  from  at  once  coming  back  to  the  common-sense  view  of  the  subject, 
and  one  which  no  art  could  long  succeed  in  concealing,  namely,  that 
these  Evangelists  did  intend  to  record  supernatural  events.  Those  to 
whom  the  Scriptures  were  no  authority,  had  at  least  this  advantage,  that 
they  were  not  under  the  temptation  to  twist  and  pervert  them,  so  to  bring 
them  into  apparent  accordance  with  their  systems. 

This  scheme  of  interpretation,  thus  assailed  from  so  many  sides, 
and  being  merely  artificial,  quickly  succumbed.  And  now,  even  in 
the  land  of  its  birth,  it  has  entirely  perished ; on  the  one  side  a deeper 
faith,  on  the  other  a more  rampant  unbelief,  have  encroached  on  and 
wholly  swallowed  up  the  territory  which  it  occupied.  It  is  indeed  so 
little  the  form  in  which  an  assault  on  Revelation  will  ever  again  clothe 
itself,  and  may  be  so  entirely  regarded  as  one  of  the  cast-off  garments 
of  unbelief,  now  despised  and  trodden  under  foot  even  of  those  who 
once  glorified  themselves  in  it,  that  I have  not  alluded,  save  very 
slightly  and  passingly,  to  it  in  the  body  of  my  book.  Once  or  twice  I 
have  noticed  its  curiosities  of  interpretation,  its  substitutions,  as  they 
have  been  happily  termed,  of  philological  for  historical  wonders.  The 
reader  who  is  curious  to  see  how  Dr.  Paulus  and  his  compeers  arrived 


* First  published  in  1800. 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


69 


at  the  desired  result  of  exhausting  the  narrative  of  its  miraculous 
element,  will  find  specimens  in  the  notes  upon  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  and  the  finding  of  the  stater  in  the  fish’s  mouth. 


7.  The  Historic o-Critical.  (Woolston,  Strauss.) 

The  last  assault  upon  the  miracles  is  that  which  may  be  not  unfitly 
termed  the  historico-critical.  It  affirms  that  they  are  so  full  of  contra- 
dictions, psychological  and  other  improbabilities,  discrepancies  between 
the  accounts  of  one  Evangelist  and  another,  that  upon  close  handling 
they  crumble  to  pieces,  and  are  unable  to  stand  as  history.  Among 
the  English  deists  of  the  last  century,  Woolston  especially  addressed 
himself  in  this  way  to  the  undermining  the  historic  credit  of  these  narra- 
tives. He  was  brought  to  this  evil  w*ork  in  a singular  way,  and  abides 
a mournful  example  of  the  extremes  whither  spite  and  mortified  vanity 
would  carry  a weak  man,  though,  as  all  testimonies  concur  in  acknow- 
ledging, at  one  time  of  estimable  conversation,  and  favorably  known 
for  his  temperate  life,  his  charity  to  the  poor,  and  other  evidences  of  an 
inward  piety.  Born  in  1609,  and  educated  at  Cambridge,  where  he 
became  a fellow  of  Sidney,  he  first  attracted  unfavorable  notice  by  a 
certain  crack-brained  enthusiasm  for  the  allegorical  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  which  he  carried  to  all  lengths.  Whether  he  owed  this  to 
the  works  of  Philo  and  Origen,  or  whether  he  only  strengthened  and 
nourished  an  already  existing  predilection  by  the  study  of  their  writings, 
is  not  exactly  clear ; but  it  had  become  a sort  of  “ fixed  idea”  in  his 
mind.  At  first,  although  just  offence  was  taken  at  more  than  one 
publication  of  his,  in  which  his  allegorical  system  was  carried  out  at 
the  expense  apparently  of  the  historic  truth  of  the  Scripture,  yet  as 
it  was  not  considered  that  he  meant  any  mischief,  as  it  was  not  likely 
that  he  would  exert  any  very  wide  influence,  he  was  suffered  to  follow 
his  own  way,  unvisited  by  any  serious  censures  from  the  higher  autho- 
rities of  the  Church.  Meeting  however  with  opposition  in  many  quar- 
ters, and  unable  to  carry  the  clergy  with  him,  he  broke  out  at  last  in 
unmeasured  invectives  against  them,  and  in  a virulent  pamphlet*  styled 
them  “slaves  of  the  letter,”  “ Baal-priests,”  “blind  leaders  of  the 
blind,”  and  was  on  account  of  this  pamphlet  deprived  of  his  fellowship 
(1721). 

* In  his  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bennett  upon  this  question,  Whether  the  Quakers 
do  not  the  nearest  of  any  other  sect  resemble  the  primitive  Christians  in  principle  and 
practices.  By  Aristobulus.  London,  1720. 


70 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


From  this  time  it  seemed  as  if  an  absolute  fury  possessed  him : not 
merely  the  Church,  but  Christianity  itself,  was  the  object  of  his  attack. 
Whether  his  allegorical  system  of  interpretation  had  indeed  ended,  as 
it  was  very  likely  to  do,  in  depriving  him  of  all  faith  in  God’s  Word, 
and  he  retained  his  professed  veneration  for  its  spiritual  meaning  only 
that  he  might,  under  shelter  of  that,  more  securely  advance  to  the 
assault  of  its  historical  foundations,  or  whether  he  did  still  retain  this 
in  truth,  it  was  now  at  any  rate  only  subordinate  and  subservient  to  his 
purposes  of  revenge.  To  these  he  was  ready  to  offer  up  every  other 
consideration.  When  then  in  that  great  controversy  which  was  raging 
in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  the  defenders  of  revealed  religion 
intrenched  themselves  behind  the  miracles,  as  defences  from  which 
they  could  never  be  driven,  as  being  irrefragable  proofs  of  the  divine 
origin  of  Christianity,  Woolston  undertook,  by  the  engines  of  his  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  to  dislodge  them  from  these  also,  arid  with  this 
aim  published  his  notorious  Letters  on  the  Miracles .*  It  is  his  manner 

* These  six  Letters , first  published  as  separate  pamphlets  between  17 27—29,  had 
an  immense  circulation,  and  were  read  with  the  greatest  avidity.  Voltaire,  who  was 
in  England  just  at  the  time  of  their  publication,  says  that  thirty  thousand  copies  of 
them  were  sold,  and  that  large  packets  of  them  were  forwarded  to  the  American 
colonies.  In  the  copy  I am  using,  the  different  letters  range  from  the  third  to  the 
sixth  edition,  and  this  almost  immediately  after  their  first  publication.  Indeed,  Swift 
in  his  lines  on  his  own  death,  written  1731,  speaks  of  something  much  more  than 
this,  and  quite  consents  with  Voltaire’s  account  of  the  immense  popularity  which 
they  enjoyed.  He  makes  Lintot,  the  bookseller,  say, — 

“ Here’s  Woolston’s  tracts,  the  twelfth  edition, 

’Tis  read  by  every  politician : 

The  country  members  when  in  town, 

To  all  their  boroughs  send  them  down  : 

You  never  met  a thing  so  smart ; 

The  courtiers  have  them  all  by  heart &c. 

Their  circulation  was  so  great,  and  their  mischief  so  wide,  that  above  sixty  answers 
were  published  within  a very  short  period.  Gibson,  then  Bishop  of  London,  addressed 
five  pastoral  letters  to  his  diocese  against  them  ; and  other  chief  divines  of  England,  as 
Sherlock,  Pearce,  Smallbrooke,  found  it  needful  to  answer  them.  Of  the  replies  which 
I have  seen,  Smallbrooke’s  (Bishop  of  St.  David’s)  Vindication  of  our  Saviour's 
Miracles,  1729,  is  the  most  learned  and  the  best.  But  one  cannot  help  being  painfully 
struck  upon  this  and  other  occasions  with  the  exceeding  poverty  and  feebleness  of  the 
antideistical  literature  of  England  in  that  day  of  need ; the  low  grounds  which  it 
occupies ; the  little  enthusiasm  which  the  cause  awakened  in  its  defenders.  With 
regard  to  Woolston  himself,  the  paltry  shifts  with  which  he  sought  to  evade  the  con- 
sequences of  his  blasphemy, — and  there  is  an  infinite  meanness  in  the  way  in  which 
he  professes,  while  blaspheming  against  the  works  of  Christ,  to  be  only  assailing  them 
in  the  letter  that  he  may  vindicate  them  in  the  spirit, — this  and  other  such  poor  eva* 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIEACLES. 


71 


in  these  to  take  certain  miracles  which  Christ  did,  or  which  were 
wrought  in  relation  of  him,  two  or  three  in  a letter,  and  he  then  seeks 
to  show  that,  understood  in  their  literal  sense,  they  contain  such  ex- 
travagancies, contradictions,  and  the  like,  that  we  can  never  suppose 
that  Christ  actually  did  them,  or  that  the  Evangelists,  as  honest  men, 
men  who  had  the  credit  of  their  Lord  at  heart,  intended  to  record  them 
as  having  been  actually  wrought,  or  desired  us  to  receive  them  other- 
wise than  as  allegories,  spiritual  truths  clothed  in  the  form  of  historic 
events.  The  enormous  difference  between  himself  and  those  early 
Church  writers,  to  whom  he  appeals,  and  whose  views  he  professes  to 
be  only  re-asserting, — a difference  of  which  it  is  impossible  that  he 
could  have  been  ignorant, — is  this : they  said,  This  history,  being  real, 
has  also  a deeper  ideal  sense;  he  upon  the  contrary,  Since  it  is  im- 
possible that  this  history  can  be  real,  therefore  it  must  have  a spiritual 
significance.  They  build  upon  the  establishment  of  the  historic  sense, 
he  upon  its  ruins.* 

When  he  wants  to  utter  grosser  blasphemies  than  in  his  own  person 
he  dares,  or  than  would  befit  the  standing  point  which  he  has  assumed 
from  whence  to  assault  Revelation,  he  introduces  a Jewish  Rabbi,  and 
suffers  him  to  speak  without  restraint,  himself  only  observing,  “ This  is 
what  an  adversary  might  say ; to  these  accusations  we  Christians  ex- 
pose ourselves  so  long  as  we  cleave  to  the  historic  letter ; we  only  can 
escape  from  thence  by  forsaking  that,  and  holding  fast  the  allegorical 
meaning  alone.”  I shall  not  (as  it  is  not  needful)  offend  the  Christian 
reader  by  the  reproduction  of  any  of  his  coarser  ribaldry,  which  has 
sufficient  cleverness  to  have  made  it  mischievous  enough,  but  wrill  en- 
deavor to  show  by  a single  example  the  manner  in  which  he  seeks  to 
make  weak  points  in  the  Scripture  narratives.  He  is  dealing  with  the 
miracle  of  the  man  sick  with  the  palsy,  who  was  let  through  the  broken 
roof  of  the  house  where  Jesus  was,  and  thereupon  healed.  (Mark  ii. 

sions  failed  to  protect  him  from  the  pains  and  penalties  of  the  law.  He  was  fined 
twenty-five  pounds  for  each  of  his  Letters,  sentenced  to  be  imprisoned  for  a year, 
and  was  not  to  be  released  till  he  could  find  sureties  for  his  good  behavior.  These 
he  was  not  able  to  procure,  and  he  died  in  prison  in  17  31. 

* Their  canon  was  ever  this,  which  Gregory  the  Great  uttered  when  he  saia  {Horn. 
40  in  Evang.) : Tunc  namque  allegoric  fructus  suaviter  carpitur,  cum  prius  per  histo- 
riam  in  veritatis  radice  solidatur ; and  they  abound  in  such  earnest  warnings  as  this 
of  Augustine’s : Ante  omnia  tamen,  fratres,  hoc  in  nomine  Dei  admonemus  . . . ut 
quando  auditis  exponi  Sacras  Scripturas  narrantes  quse  gesta  sunt,  prius  illud  quod 
lectum  est  credatis  sic  gestum  quomodo  lectum  est,  ne  subtracto  fundamento  rei 
gestae,  quasi  in  aere  quaeretis  aedificare.  Compare  what  he  says  on  the  history  of 
Jonah,  Ep.  102,  qu.  6,  § 33. 


72 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


1- — 12.)  But  how,  he  asks,  should  there  have  been  such  a crowd  to 
hear  Jesus  preach  at  Capernaum,  where  he  was  so  well  known  and  so 
little  admired?  and  then,  if  there  was  that  crowd,  what  need  of  such 
urgent  haste?  it  was  but  waiting  an  hour  or  two  till  the  multitude  had 
dispersed ; “ I should  have  thought  their  faith  might  have  worked  pa- 
tience.” Why  did  not  Jesus  tell  the  people  to  make  way?  would  they 
not  have  done  so  readily,  since  to  see  a miracle  was  the  very  thing  they 
wanted  ? How  should  the  pulleys,  ropes,  and  ladder  have  been  at  hand 
to  haul  him  up  ? How  strange,  that  they  should  have  had  hatchets  and 
hammers  ready  to  break  through  the  spars  and  rafters  of  the  roof,  and 
stranger  still  that  the  good  man  of  the  house  should  have  endured,  with- 
out  a remonstrance,  his  property  to  be  so  injured  ! How  did  those 
below  escape  without  injury  from  the  falling  tiles  and  plaster  ? And  if 
there  were  a door  in  the  roof,  as  some,  to  mitigate  the  difficulty,  tell  us, 
why  did  not  Jesus  go  up  to  the  roof,  and  there  speak  the  healing  word, 
and  so  spare  all  this  trouble  and  damage  and  danger  ? 

But  enough ; — it  is  evident  that  this  style  of  objection  could  be  infi- 
nitely multiplied  in  regard  to  any  history.  There  is  always  something 
else  that  might  have  been  done  besides  the  thing  that  was  done.  It  is 
after  this  taking  to  pieces  of  the  narrative,  this  triumphant  showing,  as  he 
affirms,  that  it  cannot  stand  in  the  letter,  that  he  proceeds,  as  a sort  of 
salvo,  to  say  it  may  very  well  stand  in  its  spirit,  as  an  allegory  and 
symbol  of  something  else ; and  that  so,  and  so  only  it  was  intended. 
This  is  what  he  offers  by  way  of  this  higher  meaning  in  the  present 
case  : By  the  palsy  of  this  man  is  signified  “ a dissoluteness  of  morals 
and  unsteadiness  of  faith  and  principles,  which  is  the  condition  of  man- 
kind at  present,  who  want  Jesus’  help  for  the  cure  of  it.”  The  four 
bearers  are  the  four  Evangelists,  “ bn  whose  faith  and  doctrine  mankind 
is  to  be  carried  unto  Christ.”  The  house  to  the  top  of  which  he  is  to 
be  carried  is,  “ the  intellectual  edifice  of  the  world,  otherwise  called 
Wisdom’s  house.”  But  “ to  the  sublime  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  called 
the  top  of  the  house,  is  man  to  be  taken  : he  is  not  to  abide  in  the  low 
and  literal  sense  of  them.”  Then  if  he  dare  to  “ open  the  house  of 
wisdom,  he  will  presently  be  admitted  to  the  presence  and  knowledge 
of  Jesus.”* 

* Fourth  Discourse  on  the  Miracles , pp.  51 — 61.  Strauss’s  own  judgment  of  his 
predecessor  in  this  line  very  much  agrees  with  that  given  above.  He  says,  “ Wool- 
ston’s  whole  presentation  of  the  case  veers  between  these  alternatives.  If  we  are  de- 
termined to  hold  fast  the  miracles  as  actual  history,  then  they  forfeit  all  divine  charac- 
ter, and  sink  down  into  unworthy  tricks  and  common  frauds.  Will  we,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  let  go  the  divine  in  these  narrations,  then  must  we,  with  the  sacrifice  of 
their  historic  character,  understand  them  only  as  the  setting  forth,  in  historic  guise,  of 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


73 


Not  very  different  is  Strauss’s  own  method  of  proceeding.  He 
wields  the  same  weapons  of  destructive  criticism,  thinking  to  show  how 
each  history  will  crumble  at  his  touch — will  remain  a heap  of  improba- 
bilities, which  no  one  can  any  longer  maintain.  It  needs  not  to  say 
that  he  is  a more  accomplished  adversary  than  Woolston,  with  far 
ampler  resources  at  command, — more,  if  not  of  his  own,  yet  of  other 
men’s  learning ; inheriting  as  he  does  all  the  negative  criticism  of  the 
last  hundred  years,  of  an  epoch,  that  is,  wrhich  has  been  sufficiently 
fruitful  in  this  kind.  Here  indeed  is  in  great  part  the  secret  of  the  vast 
sensation  which  his  work  for  a season  caused : all  that  was  scattered  up 
and  down  in  many  books  he  has  brought  together  and  gathered  into  a 
single  focus ; all  which  other  men  had  spoken  faintly  and  with  reserve, 
he  with  a greater  boldness  has  spoken  out ; he  has  dared  to  give  utter- 
ance to  all  which  was  trembling  upon  the  lips  of  numbers,  but  which, 
from  one  cause  or  another,  they  had  shrunk  from  openly  declaring. 
Yet  as  regards  the  treatment  of  the  miracles, — for  with  that  only  we  have 
now  to  do, — there  are  differences  between  him  and  Woolston.  He 
unites  in  his  own  person  the  philosophical  and  the  critical  assailant  of 
these ; for  he  starts  from  the  philosophic  ground  of  Spinoza,  that  the 
miracle  is  impossible,  since  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  and  the  ne- 
cessary laws  of  God ; and  he  then  proceeds  to  the  critical  examination 
of  the  Gospel  miracles  in  detail ; but  of  course  in  each  case  to  the  trial 
of  that  which  is  already  implicitly  tried  and  condemned.  Thus,  if  he 
is  ever  at  a loss — if  any  of  them  give  him  trouble — if  they  oppose  a 
stubborn  resistance  to  the  powerful  solvents  which  he  applies,  threaten- 
ing to  stand  in  despite  of  all,  he  immediately  falls  back  on  his  philoso- 


certain  spiritual  truths ; for  which,  indeed,  the  authority  of  the  chiefest  allegorists  in 
the  Church,  as  Origen  and  Augustine  and  others,  may  be  adduced ; — yet  so,  that  Wool- 
ston  imputes  falsely  to  them  the  intention  of  thrusting  out,  as  he  would  do,  the  literal 
interpretation  by  the  allegorical  altogether ; while  yet  they,  a few  instances  on  Origen’s 
part  being  excepted,  are  inclined  to  let  both  explanations  stand,  the  one  by  the  other. 
Woolston’s  statement  of  the  case  may  leave  a doubt  to  which  of  the  two  alternatives 
which  he  sets  over  against  one  another,  he  with  his  own  judgment  inclines.  If  one 
calls  to  mind,  that  before  he  came  forward  as  an  opponent  of  Christianity,  as  received 
in  his  day,  he  occupied  himself  with  allegorical  interpretations  of  the  Scripture,  one 
might  regard  this  as  the  opinion  which  was  most  truly  his  own.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  all  that  he  can  adduce  of  incongruities  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  miracle  histo 
ries  is  brought  forward  with  such  one-sided  zeal,  and  so  colors  the  whole  with  its 
mocking  tone,  that  one  must  rather  conjecture  that  the  Deist  seeks  only,  by  urging  the 
allegorical  sense,  to  secure  his  own  rear,  so  that  he  may  the  more  boldly  let  himself 
loose  on  the  literal  meaning.”  (Leben  Jesu , 3rd  edit.,  v.  1,  p.  14.)  There  is  a very 
accurate  and  carefully  written  account  of  Woolston,  and  his  life  and  writings  in  Lech- 
ler’s  Geschichte  des  Englischen  Deismus,  pp.  289 — 311. 

10 


74 


THE  ASSAULTS  OH  THE  MIRACLES. 


phic  ground,  and  exclaims,  “ But  if  we  admit  it  was  thus,  then  we 
should  have  here  a miracle,  and  we  have  started  from  the  first  princi- 
ple, that  such  is  inconceivable.”  This  mocker y in  every  case  he  re- 
peats, trying  them  one  by  one,  which  have  all  been  condemned  by  him 
beforehand  in  the  gross. 

There  is,  too,  this  further  difference,  that  while  Woolston  professed 
to  consider  the  miracles  as  the  conscious  clothing  of  spiritual  truth,  alle- 
gories devised  artificially,  and,  so  to  speak,  in  cold  blood,  for  the  setting 
forth  truths  of  the  kingdom,  Strauss  gives  them  a freer  birth  and  a some- 
what nobler  origin.  They  are  the  halo  of  glory  with  which  the  in- 
fant Church  gradually  and  without  any  purposes  of  deceit  clothed  its 
Founder  and  its  Head.  His  mighty  personality,  of  which  it  was  liv- 
ingly  conscious,  caused  it  ever  to  surround  him  with  new  attributes  of 
glory.  All  which  men  had  ever  craved  and  longed  for — deliverance 
from  physical  evil,  dominion  over  the  crushing  powers  of  nature,  victory 
over  death  itself, — all  which  had  ever  in  a lesser  measure  been  attri- 
buted to  any, — they  lent  in  larger  abundance,  in  unrestrained  fulness, 
to  him  whom  they  felt  greater  than  all.  The  system  may  be  most 
fitly  characterized  as  the  Church  making  its  Christ,  and  not  Christ 
his  Church. 

With  one  only  observation  I will  pass  on,  and  not  detain  the  reader 
any  longer  from  more  pleasant  and  more  profitable  portions  of  the  sub- 
ject. It  is  this,  that  here,  as  so  often,  we  find  the  longings  and  cravings 
of  men  after  a redemption,  in  the  widest  >ense  of  that  word,  made  to 
throw  suspicion  upon  him  in  whom  these  longings  and  cravings  are  af- 
firmed to  have  been  satisfied.  But  if  we  believe  a divine  life  stirring 
at  the  root  of  our  humanity,  the  depth  and  universality  of  such  longings 
is  a proof  rather  that  they  were  meant  some  day  to  find  their  satisfaction 
-Mbat  they  were  not  always  to  be  hopes  and  dreams  ; and  if  so,  in  whom, 
but  in  him  whom  we  preach — in  whom,  but  in  Christ  ? What  other 
beside  him  could,  with  the  slightest  show  of  reason,  be  put  forward  as 
the  fulfiller  of  the  world’s  hopes  'i  If  we  do  not  believe  in  this  divine 
life,  nor  in  a divine  leading  of  our  race — if  we  hold  a mere  brutal  theory 
about  man,  it  were  then  better  altogether  to  leave  discussing  miracles 
and  Gospels,  which  indeed  have  no  meaning  for,  as  they  stand  in  no  re- 
lation to,  us. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

A most  interesting  question  remains : namely  this,  What  is  the  place 
which  those  who  are  occupied  with  marshalling  and  presenting  the  evi- 
dences of  Revelation  should  give  to  the  miracles'?  what  is  the  service 
which  they  may  render  here?  The  circumstances  have  been  already 
noticed  which  were  sufficient  to  hinder  them  from  taking  a very  promi- 
nent place  in  the  early  Apologies  for  Christianity.*  The  Christian  mira- 
cles had  not  sufficiently  extricated  themselves  from  the  multitude  of 
false  miracles, — nor  was  Christ  sufficiently  discerned  and  distinguished 
from  the  various  wonder-workers  of  his  own  and  of  past  ages  ; so  that, 
even  if  men  had  admitted  his  miracles  to  be  true  and  godlike,  they 
would  have  been  hardly  nearer  to  the  acknowledging  of  Christianity  as 
the  one  faith,  or  of  him  as  “ the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life.” 

But  a different  and  far  more  important  position  has  been  assigned 
them  in  later  times,  especially  during  the  last  two  hundred  years ; and 
the  tone  and  temper  of  modern  theology  abundantly  explains  the  greater 
prominence,  sometimes,  I believe,  the  Undue,  because  the  exclusive, 
prominence,  which  in  this  period  they  have  assumed.  The  apologetic 
literature  of  this  time,  partook,  as  was  inevitable,  in  the  general  depres- 
sion of  all  its  theology.  There  is  no  one,  I think,  who  would  now  be 
satisfied  with  the  general  tone  and  spirit  in  which  the  defences  of  the 
faith,  written  during  the  two  last  centuries,  and  beginning  with  the  me- 

* Thus,  in  the  Apologies  of  Justin  Martyr,  they  are  scarcely  made  use  of  at  alt 
It  is  otherwise  indeed  with  Arnobius,  who  (Adv.  Gen.,  1.  1,  c.  42)  lays  much  stress 
on  them.  Speaking  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  of  Christ’s  mission,  he  says, 
Nulla  major  est  comprobatio  quam  gestarum  ab  eo  tides  rerum,  quam  virtutum, — 
and  then  appeals  through  ten  eloquent  chapters  to  his  miracles. 


76 


THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OE  THE  MIRACLES. 


morable  work  of  Grotius,*  are  composed.  Much  as  this  and  many 
others  contain  of  admirable,  yet  in  well  nigh  all  that  great  truth  of  the 
Italian  poet  seems  to  have  been  forgotten, 

“ They  struggle  vainly  to  preserve  a part, 

Who  have  not  courage  to  contend  for  all.” 

These  apologists,  on  the  contrary,  would  seem  very  often  to  have 
thought  that  Deism  was  best  to  be  resisted  by  reducing  Christianity  to  a 
sort  of  revealed  Deism.  Like  men  that  had  renounced  the  hope  of  de- 
fending all,  their  whole  endeavor  was  to  save  something,  and  when  their 
pursuers  pressed  them  hard,  they  were  willing  to  delay  the  pursuit  by 
casting  to  them  as  a prey  much  that  ought  to  have  been  the  dearest  to 
themselves.  It  has  been  well  observed,  that  they  were  like  men  who 
should  cry  “ Thieves  and  robbers !”  who  were  yet  themselves  all  the 
while  throwing  out  of  the  windows  the  most  precious  things  of  the  house ; 
and  thus  it  sometimes  happened  that  the  good  cause  suffered  quite  as 
much  from  its  defenders  as  its  assailants : for  that  enemies  should  be 
fierce  and  bitter,  this  was  only  to  be  looked  for ; but  that  friends,  those 
in  whose  keeping  was  the  citadel,  should  be  timid  and  half-hearted,  and 
ready  for  a compromise,  this  was  indeed  an  augury  of  ill.  Now  this, 
which  caused  so  much  to  be  thrown  greatly  out  of  sight,  as  generally 
the  mysteries  of  our  faith,  which  brought  about  a slight  of  the  inner  ar- 
guments for  revelation,  caused  that  from  the  miracles  to  assume  a dis- 
proportionate magnitude.  A value  too  exclusive  was  set  on  them ; they 
were  rent  away  from  the  truths  for  which  they  witnessed,  and  which 
witnessed  for  them — only  too  much  like  seals  torn  off  from  the  document 
which  at  once  they  rendered  valid,  and  which  gave  importance  to  them. 
And  thus,  in  this  unnatural  isolation,  separated  from  Christ’s  person  and 
doctrine,  the  whole  burden  of  proof  was  laid  on  them.  They  were  the 
apology  for  Christianity,  the  reason  which  men  were  taught  they  should 
give  for  the  faith  which  was  in  them.f 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  the  motives  which  led  to  this ; they  were  chiefly 
the  desire  to  get  an  absolute  demonstration  of  the  Christian  faith — one 
which  objectively  should  be  equally  good  for  every  man : it  was  the  wish 

* De  Veritate  Religionis  Christiana. 

f I include,  in  the  proofs  drawn  from  the  miracles,  those  drawn  from  the  Old 
Testament  prophecies — for  it  was  only  as  miracles , (miracula  praescientiae,  as  the 
others  are  miracula  potentiae,)  that  these  prophecies  were  made  to  do  service  and 
arrayed  in  the  forefront  of  this  battle ; as  by  the  learned  and  aoute  Huet,  in  his 
Demonstratio  Evangelica , in  which  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  is  altogether  the  point  round  which  the  whole  argument  turns,  as  he 
himself  in  the  Preface,  § 2,  declares. 


THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  77 


to  bring  the  matter  to  the  same  sort  of  proof  as  exists  for  a proposition  in 
mathematics  or  in  logic.  And  consistently  with  this  we  see  the  whole 
argument  cast  exactly  into  the  same  forms  of  definitions,  postulates, 
axioms,  and  propositions.'*  But  at  the  same  time  the  state  of  mind 
which  made  men  to  desire  either  to  find  for  themselves,  or  to  furnish 
others  with,  proofs  of  this  nature,  was  not  altogether  healthy.  It  was 
plain  that  their  faith  had  become  very  much  an  external  historic  one, 
when  they  thus  eagerly  looked  round  for  outward  evidences,  and  found 
a value  only  in  such ; instead  of  turning  in  upon  themselves  as  well,  for 
evidence  that  they  had  “ not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables,”  and 
saying,  “We  know  the  things  which  we  believe — they  are  to  us  truer 
than  aught  else  can  be,  for  we  have  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  for  their 
truth.  W e have  found  these  things  to  be  true,  for  they  have  come  to  us 
in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  in  power.”  Instead  of  an  appeal  to 
those  mighty  influences  which  Christ’s  words  and  doctrine  exercise  on 
every  heart  that  receives  them,  to  their  transforming,  transfiguring 
power,  to  the  miracles  of  grace  which  are  the  heritage  of  every  one 
who  has  believed  to  salvation,  instead  of  an  addressing  of  the  gainsayers 
in  the  very  language  of  the  Lord,  “ If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall 
know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God,”  (John  vii.  17,)  this  all  as 
mystical  and  uncertain,  (instead  of  being  seen  to  be,  as  it  truly  was,  the 
most  certain  thing  of  all,)  was  thrown  into  the  background.  Men  were 
afraid  to  trust  themselves  and  their  cause  to  arguments  like  these,  and 
would  know  of  no  other  statement  of  the  case  than  this  barren  and 
hungry  one Christianity  is  a divine  revelation,  and  this  the  miracles 
which  accompanied  its  promulgation  prove.  What  must  first  be  found 
fault  with  in  this  is  the  wilful  abandonment  of  such  large  regions  of 
proof,  which  the  Christian  apologist  ought  triumphantly  to  have  occu- 
pied as  his  proper  domain — the  whole  region,  mainly  and  chiefly,  of 
the  inner  spiritual  life ; his  foregoing  an  appeal  to  the  mysterious  powers 
of  regeneration  and  renewal,  which  are  ever  found  to  follow  on  a true 
adherence  to  him  who  is  the  Giver  of  this  faith,  and  who  has  pledged 
himself  to  these  very  results. 

On  such  he  might  at  least  have  ventured,  when  he  was  seeking  not 
to  convince  an  unbeliever,  but,  as  would  be  often  his  aim,  to  carry  one 
that  already  believed  round  the  whole  circle  of  the  defences  of  his  posi- 
tion— to  make  him  aware  of  the  relative  strength  of  each — to  give  him 

* For  example,  by  Huet  in  his  work  referred  to  above.  He  claims  for  the  way  of 
proof  upon  which  he  is  entering  that  it  is  the  safest : Prcefatio,  § 2 : Utpote  quse  con- 
stet  hoc  genere  demonstrationis,  quod  non  minus  certum  sit  quam  demonstratio  quaevis 
geometrica. 


78  THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OF  THE  MIRACLES. 

a scientific  insight  into  the  grounds  on  which  his  faith  rested.  Here,  at 
any  rate,  the  appeal  to  what  he  had  himself  known  and  tasted  of  the 
powers  of  the  world  to  come,  might  well  have  found  room.  For,  to  use 
the  words  of  Coleridge,' * “ Is  not  a true,  efficient  conviction  of  a moral 
truth,'  is  not  the  creating  of  a new  heart , which  collects  the  energies  of  a 
man’s  whole  being  in  the  focus  of  the  conscience,  the  one  essential  mira- 
cle, the  same  and  of  the  same  evidence  to  the  ignorant  and  to  the 
learned,  which  no  superior  skill  can  counterfeit,  human  or  demoniacal ; 
is  it  not  emphatically  that  leading  of  the  Father,  without  which  no  man 
can  come  to  Christ ; is  it  not  that  implication  of  doctrine  in  the  miracle, 
and  of  miracle  in  the  doctrine,  which  is  the  bridge  of  communication 
between  the  senses  and  the  soul ; — that  predisposing  warmth  which  ren- 
ders the  understanding  susceptible  of  the  specific  impressions  from  the 
historic,  and  from  all  other  outward,  seals  of  testimony ?”  And  even  if 
arguing  with  one  who  had  never  submitted  himself  to  these  blessed 
powers,  and  to  whose  experience  therefore  no  like  appeal  could  be  made, 
yet  even  for  him  there  is  the  outward  utterance  of  this  inward  truth,  in 
that  which  he  could  not  deny,  save  as  he  denied  or  was  ignorant  of 
every  thing,  which  would  make  him  one  to  be  argued  with  at  all — the 
fact,  I mean,  of  a Christendom — the  standing  miracle  of  a Christendom 
“ commensurate  and  almost  synonymous  with  the  civilized  world” — the 
mighty  changes  which  this  religion  has  wrought  in  the  earth — the  divine 
fruits  which  it  every  where  has  borne — the  new  creation  which  it  has 
been — the  way  in  which  it  has  taken  its  place  in  the  world,  not  as  a for- 
cible intruder,  but  finding  all  that  world’s  pre-established  harmonies 
ready  to  greet  and  welcome  it,  ready  to  give  it  play  and  room — philos- 
ophy, and  art,  and  science,  practically  confessing  that  only  under  it 
could  they  attain  their  highest  perfection,  that  in  something  they  had  all 
been  dwarfed  and  stunted  and  insufficient  before.  Little  as  it  wears  of 
the  glory  which  it  ought  to  have,  yet  it  wears  enough  to  proclaim  that  its 
origin  was  more  than  mundane ; surely  from  a Christendom,  even  such 
as  it  shows  itself  now,  it  is  fair  to  argue  back  to  a Christ  such  as  the 
Church  receives  as  the  only  adequate  cause.  It  is  an  oak  which  from 
no  other  acorn  could  have  unfolded  itself  into  so  goodly  a tree. 

It  is  true  that  in  this  there  is  an  abandoning  of  the  attempt  to  put  the 
proof  of  Christianity  into  the  same  form  as  a proposition  in  an  exact 
science.  There  is  no  more  the  claim  made  of  giving  it  their  kind  of 
certainty.  But  this,  which  may  sec?m  at  first  sight  a loss,  is  indeed  a 
gain ; for  the  argument  for  all  which  as  Christians  we  believe  is  in  very 
truth  not  logical  and  single,  but  moral  and  cumulative ; and  the  attempt 


* The  Friend,  Yol.  3,  Essay  II. 


THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  79 


to  substitute  a formal  proof,  where  the  deepest  necessities  of  the  soul  de* 
mand  a moral,  is  one  of  the  most  grievous  shocks  which  the  moral  sense 
can  receive,  as  it  is  one,  too,  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of  unbelief. 
Few  who  have  had  books  of  evidences  put  into  their  hands,  constructed 
upon  this  principle,  but  must  remember  the  shock  which  they  suffered 
from  them — how  it  took  them,  it  may  be,  some  time  to  recover  the  tone 
of  their  minds,  and  how  only  by  falling  back  upon  what  they  themselves 
had  felt  and  known  of  the  living  power  of  Christ’s  words  and  doctrine  in 
their  own  hearts,  could  they  deliver  themselves  from  the  injurious  in- 
fluences, the  seeds  of  doubt  and  of  misgiving,  which  these  books  had 
now  for  the  first  time  perhaps  sown  in  their  minds.  They  must  remem- 
ber how  they  asked  themselves,  in  deep  inner  trouble  of  soul : “ Are 
these  indeed  the  grounds,  and  the  only  grounds,  upon  which  the  deep 
foundations  of  my  spiritual  life  repose  ? is  this  all  that  I have  to  answer  ? 
are  these,  and  no  more,  the  reasons  of  the  faith  that  is  in  me  ?”  And 
then,  if  at  any  moment  there  arose  a suspicion  that  some  link  in  this 
chain  of  outward  proof  was  wanting,  or  that  any  would  not  bear  all  the 
weight  which  was  laid  upon  it — and  men  will  be  continually  tempted  to 
try  the  strength  of  that  on  which  they  have  trusted  all — there  was  no- 
thing to  fall  back  upon,  with  which  to  scatter  and  put  to  flight  a suspi- 
cion such  as  this.  And  that  such  should  arise,  at  least  in  many  minds, 
were  inevitable ; for  how  many  points,  as  we  have  seen,  are  there  at 
which  suspicion  may  intrude.  Is  a miracle  possible?  Is  a miracle 
provable  ? W ere  the  witnesses  of  these  miracles  competent  ? Did  they 
not  too  lightly  admit  a supernatural  cause,  when  there  were  adequate 
natural  ones  which  they  failed  to  note  ? These  works  may  have  been 
good  for  the  eye-witnesses,  but  what  are  they  for  me  ? And  these 
doubts  and  questionings  might  be  multiplied  without  number.  Happy  is 
the  man,  and  he  only  is  happy,  who,  if  the  outworks  of  his  faith  are  at 
any  time  thus  assailed,  can  betake  himself  to  an  impregnable  inner  cita- 
del, from  whence  in  due  time  to  issue  forth  and  repossess  even  those 
exterior  defences,  who  can  fall  back  on  those  inner  grounds  of  belief,  in 
which  there  can  be  no  mistake,  that  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  which  is 
above  and  better  than  all.* 

And  as  it  is  thus  with  him,  who  entirely  desiring  to  believe,  is  only 
unwillingly  disturbed  with  doubts  and  suggestions,  which  he  would 
give  worlds  to  be  rid  of  for  ever,  so  on  the  other  hand  the  expectation 
that  by  arguments  thrown  apparently  into  forms  of  strict  reasoning 
there  is  any  compelling  to  the  faith  one  who  does  not  wish  to  believe, 

* See  the  admirable  words  of  Calvin,  Instit,  L 1,  c.  I,  § 4,  5,  on  the  Holy  Scrip 
ture  as  ultimately  avromcTos. 


80  THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OE  THE  MIRACLES. 


is  absurd,  and  an  expectation  which  all  experience  contradicts.  All 
that  he  is,  and  all  that  he  is  determined  to  be,  has  bribed  such  an  one 
to  an  opposite  conclusion.  Rather  than  believe  that  a miracle  has 
taken  place — a miracle  from  the  upper  world,  and  connected  with  doc- 
trines of  holiness,  to  which  doctrines  he  is  resolved  to  yield  no  obedi- 
ence— he  will  take  refuge  in  any  the  most  monstrous  supposition  of 
fraud,  or  ignorance,  or  folly,  or  collusion.  If  no  such  solution  presents 
itself,  he  will  wait  for  such,  rather  than  accept  the  miracle,  with  its 
hated  adjunct  of  the  truth  which  it  confirms.  In  what  different  ways 
the  same  miracle  of  Christ  wrought  upon  different  spectators!  He 
raised  a man  from  the  dead ; here  was  the  same  outward  fact  for  all ; 
but  how  diverse  the  effects ! — some  believed  and  some  went  and  told 
the  Pharisees.  (John  xi.  45,  46.)  Heavenly  voices  were  heard, — and 
some  said  it  thundered,  so  dull  and  inarticulate  were  those  sounds  to 
them,  while  others  knew  that  they  were  voices  wherein  was  the  witness 
of  God  to  his  own  Son.  (John  xii.  28 — 30.) 

Are  then,  it  may  be  asked,  the  miracles  to  occupy  no  place  at  all 
in  the  array  of  proofs  for  the  certainty  of  the  things  which  we  have 
believed'?  On  the  contrary,  a most  important  place..  We  should 
greatly  miss  them  if  they  did  not  appear  in  sacred  history,  if  we  could 
not  point  to  them  there;  for  they  belong  to  the  .very  idea  of  a Re- 
deemer, which  would  remain  most . incomplete  without  them.  We 
could  not  ourselves,  without  having  that  idea  infinitely  weakened  and 
impoverished,  conceive  of  him  as  not  doing  such  works ; and  those  to 
whom  we  presented  him  might  make  answer,  “ Strange,  that  one  should 
come  to  deliver  men  from  the  bondage  of  nature  which  was  crushing 
them,  and  yet  himself  have  been  subject  to  its  heaviest  laws, — himself 
wonderful,  and  yet  his  appearance  accompanied  by  no  analogous  won- 
ders in  nature, — claiming  to  be  the  Life,  and  yet  himself  helpless  in  the 
encounter  with  death ; however  much  he  promised  in  word,  never 
realizing  any  part  of  his  promises  in  deed,  giving  nothing  in  hand,  no 
first  fruits  of  power,  no  pledges  of  greater  things  to  come.”  They 
would  have  a right  to  ask,  “ Why  did  he  give  no  signs  that  he  came  to 
connect  the  visible  with  the  invisible  world  *?  Why  did  he  nothing  to 
break  the  yoke  of  custom  and  experience,  nothing  to  show  men  that  the 
constitution  which  he  pretended  to  reveal  has  a true  foundation1?”* 
And  who  would  not  feel  that  they  had  right  in  this,  that  a Saviour  who 
so  bore  himself  during  his  earthly  life,  and  his  actual  daily  encounter 
with  evil,  would  have  been  felt  to  be  no  Saviour  ? that  he  must  needs 
show  himself,  if  he  were  to  meet  the  wants  of  men,  mighty  not  only  in 


Maurice’s  Kingdom  of  Christ , v.  2,  p.  264. 


THE  APOLOGETIC  WORTH  OF  THE  MIRACLES.  81 


word  but  in  work  ? When  we  object  to  the  use  that  has  been  often  made 
of  these  works,  it  is  only  because  they  have  been  forcibly  severed  from 
the  whole  complex  of  Christ’s  life  and  doctrine,  and  presented  to  the 
contemplation  of  men  apart  from  these ; it  is  only  because,  when  on  his 
head  who  is  the  Word  of  God,  are  “many  crowns,”  (Rev.  xxix.  12,) 
one  only  has  been  singled  out  in  proof  that  he  is  King  of  kings,  and 
Lord  of  lords.  The  miracles  have  been  spoken  of  as  though  they 
borrowed  nothing  from  the  truths  which  they  confirmed,  but  those 
truths  every  thing  from  them  ; when  indeed  the  true  relation  is  one  of 
mutual  interdependence,  the  miracles  proving  the  doctrines,  and  the  doc- 
trines approving  the  miracles,*  and  both  held  together  for  us  in  a 
blessed  unity,  in  the  person  of  him  who  spake  the  words  and  did  the 
works,  and  through  the  impress  of  highest  holiness  and  of  absolute 
truth  and  goodness,  which  that  person  leaves  stamped  on  our  souls ; — 
so  that  it  may  be  more  truly  said  that  we  believe  the  miracles  for 
Christ’s  sake,  than  Christ  for  the  miracles’  sake.f  Neither  when  we 
thus  affirm  that  the  miracles  prove  the  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  the 
miracles,  are  we  arguing  in  a circle : rather  we  are  receiving  the  sum 
total  of  the  impression  which  this  divine  revelation  is  intended  to  make 
on  us,  instead  of  taking  an  impression  only  partial  and  one-sided. 

* See  Pascal’s  Pensees,  c.  2*7,  Sur  les  Miracles. 

f Augustine  was  indeed  affirming  the  same  when  against  the  Dcnatists,  and 
their  claims  to  be  workers  of  wonders  he  said  (De  Unit.  Eccles.,  c.  19);  Qusecunque 
talia  in  catholica  [ecclesia]  fiunt,  ideo  sunt  approbanda,  quia  in  catholica  fiunt,  non 
ideo  manifestatur  catholica,  quia  haec  in  ea  fiunt. 

U 


m 


r4  ■ .■  ■.  , $ ■ w*  >•>  '•••- 

. 

• . 

. 

. 

' 

• - 

t 

■ . . ' - 

• • 

- 


■ - 

. 


THE  MIRACLES 


i. 

THE  WATER  MADE  WIRE. 

John  ii.  1 — 11. 

M This  beginning  of  miracles ” is  as  truly  an  introduction  to  all  other 
miracles  which  Christ  did,  as  the  parable  of  the  Sower  is  an  introduc- 
tion to  all  other  parables  which  he  spoke.  (Mark  iv.  31.)  No  other 
miracle  would  have  had  so  much  in  it  of  prophecy,  would  have  served 
as  so  fit  an  inauguration  to  the  whole  future  work  of  the  Son  of  God. 
For  that  work  might  be  characterized  throughout  as  an  ennobling  of  the 
common  and  a transmuting  of  the  mean — a turning  of  the  water  of 
earth  into  the  wine  of  heaven.  Yet  not  to  anticipate  remarks  which 
will  find  their  fitter  place,  when  the  circumstances  of  this  miracle  have 
been  more  fully  considered,  what  is  this  “ third  dayf  which  St.  John 
gives  as  the  date  of  this  present  miracle?  It  is  generally,  and,  1 
believe,  correctly  answered,  the  third  after  the  day  on  which  Philip 
and  Nathanael,  of  whose  coming  to  Christ  there  is  mention  immediately 
before,  (i.  43,)  had  attached  themselves  to  him.  He  and  his  newly- 
won  disciples  would  have  passed  without  difficulty  from  the  banks  of 
Jordan  to  Cana*  in  two  days,  and  thus  might  have  been  easily  present 

* Among  the  most  felicitous  and  most  convincing  of  Robinson’s  slighter  rectifica- 
tions of  the  geography  of  Palestine,  {Biblical  Researches,  v.  3,  pp.  204 — 208,)  is  that 
in  which  he  reinstates  the  true  Cana  in  honors  which  had  long  been  usurped  by  an- 
other village.  It  would  seem  that  in  the  neighborhood  of  Nazareth  are  two  villages, 
one  of  which  bears  the  title  of  Kefr  Kenna,  and  is  about  an  hour  and  a half  N.  E. 
from  Nazareth ; the  other,  K&na  el-Jelil,  about  three  hours’  distance,  and  nearly  due 


84 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


at  the  “ marriage or,  better,  the  marriage  festival,  upon  the  third  daj 
after  that  event.  But  besides  the  Lord  and  his  disciples,  “ the  mother 
of  Jesus  was  there ” also.  It  is  most  likely,  indeed  there  is  every  reason 
to  suppose,  that  Joseph  was  now  dead ; the  last  mention  of  him  occurs 
on  the  occasion  of  the  Lord’s  visit  as  a child  to  the  Temple ; he  had 
died,  probably,  between  that  time  and  Christ’s  open  undertaking  of  his 
ministry.  The  disciples  called  are  commonly  taken  to  be  the  five* 
whom  he  had  so  lately  gathered,  Andrew  and  Peter,  Philip  and  Na- 
thanael, (Bartholomew'?)  and  the  fifth,  the  Evangelist  himself.  For 
St.  J ohn  is  generally  considered  to  have  been  the  second  of  the  two 
scholars  of  the  Baptist  mentioned  i.  35,  40,  of  whom  Andrew  was  the 
other,  both  from  all  the  circumstances  being  detailed  with  so  great 
minuteness,  and  it  being  so  much  in  his  manner  to  keep  back  his  own 
personality  under  such  language  as  there  is  used  (xiii.  23 ; xviii.  15 ; 
xix.  26,  35).  If  this  was  so,  he  would  then  be  an  eye-witness  of  the 
miracle  which  he  is  relating,  f 

north.  The  former,  which  has  only  greater  nearness  in  its  favor,  is  now  always 
shown  by  the  monks  and  other  guides  to  travellers  as  the  Cana  of  our  history,  though 
the  name  can  only  with  difficulty  be  twisted  to  the  same,  the  Kefr  having  first  to  be 
dropped  altogether ; and  in  Kenna,  the  first  radical  changed  and  the  second  left  out ; 
while  “ Kana  el-Jelil”  is  word  for  word  the  “ Cana  of  Galilee”  of  Scripture,  which 
exactly  so  stands  in  the  Arabic  version  of  the  New  Testament.  In  addition,  he  de- 
cisively proves  that  the  mistake  is  entirely  modern,  since  it  is  only  since  the  sixteenth 
century  that  Kefr  Kenna  has  thus  borne  away  the  honors  due  rightly  to  Kana  el-JeliL 
Till  then,  as  he  shows  by  numerous  references  to  a line  of  earlier  travellers  and  to- 
pographers reaching  through  many  centuries,  the  latter  was  ever  considered  as  the 
scene  of  this  first  miracle  of  our  Lord.  It  may  have  helped  to  further  the  mistake, 
and  to  win  for  it  an  easier  acceptance,  that  it  was  manifestly  for  the  interest  of 
guides  and  travellers,  who  would  spare  themselves  fatigue  and  distance,  to  accept  the 
other  in  its  room,  it  lying  directly  on  one  of  the  routes  between  Nazareth  and  Tibe- 
rias, and  being  far  more  accessible  than  the  true.  The  Cana  of  the  New  Testament 
does  not  occur  in  the  Old,  but  is  mentioned  twice  by  Josephus,  who  also  takes  note 
of  it  as  in  Galilee.  (Vita,  § 16,  64 ; Bell.  Jud.,  1.  1,  c.  17,  § 5.)  The  Old  Testament 
has  only  Kanah  in  Asher,  (Josh.  xix.  28,)  S.  E.  of  Tyre. 

* Yet  later  considerations  on  the  first  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  will  leave  it 
not  unlikely  that  “ disciples”  here  may  mean  only  the  two  among  the  five  who  do 
not  appear  there,  namely,  Philip  and  Nathanael. 

f A late  tradition  makes  St.  John  not  merely  an  eye-witness,  but  to  have  been 
himself  the  bridegroom  at  this  marriage,  who,  seeing  the  miracle  which  Jesus  did,  for- 
sook the  bride  and  followed  him.  The  author  of  the  Prologue  to  St.  John,  attributed 
to  St.  Jerome,  relates:  Joannem  nubere  volentem  a nuptiis  per  Dominum  fuisse  vo- 
catum,  though  without  more  close  allusion  to  this  miracle.  The  Mahometans  have 
received  this  tradition,  that  St.  John  was  the  bridegroom,  from  the  Christians.  (See 
D’Herbelot’s  Biblioth.  Orient .,  s.  v.  Johanna .)  Nicephorus  tells  the  story  with  this 
variation,  that  it  was  not  St.  John,  but  Simon  the  Canaanite  who  on  this  Hint  fri 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


85 


We  need  not  wonder  to  find  the  Lord  of  life  at  that  festival ; for  he 
came  to  sanctify  all  life — its  times  of  joy,  as  its  times  of  sorrow ; and 
all  experience  tells  us,  that  it  is  times  of  gladness,  such  as  this  was  now, 
which  especially  need  such  a sanctifying  power,  such  a presence  of  the 
Lord.  In  times  of  sorrow,  the  sense  of  God’s  presence  comes  more 
naturally  out : in  these  it  is  in  danger  to  be  forgotten.  He  was  there, 
and  by  his  presence  there  struck  the  key-note  to  the  whole  future  tenor 
of  his  ministry.  He  should  not  be  as  another  Baptist,  to  withdraw  him- 
self from  the  common  paths  of  men,  a preacher  in  the  wilderness : but 
his  should  be  at  once  a harder  and  a higher  task,  to  mingle  with  and 
purify  the  common  life  of  men,  to  witness  for  and  bring  out  the  glory 
which  was  hidden  in  its  every  relation.*  And  it  is  not  perhaps  without 
its  significance,  that  this  should  have  been  especially  a marriage , which 
he  “ adorned  and  beautified  with  his  presence  and  first  miracle  that  he 
wrought.”  He  foresaw  that  some  hereafter  should  arise  in  his  Church 
who  would  despise  marriage,  or  if  not  despise,  yet  fail  to  give  the  Chris- 
tian family  all  its  honor. f They  should  find  no  countenance  from  him.j; 

lowed  Jesus ; but  the  K avavariq  attached  to  his  name,  (Matt.  x.  4,)  and  which  is  pro- 
bably the  only  foundation  for  this  assumption,  does  not  mean,  of  Cana,  but  rather  is 
of  the  same  significance  as  Zrj^urgg,  the  title  which  elsewhere  (Luke  vi.  15  ; Acts  i. 
13)  is  given  him.  He  had  belonged  to  these  zealots  till  his  zeal  for  freedom,  which 
hitherto  had  shown  itself  in  those  stormy  and  passionate  outbreaks  of  the  natural 
man,  found  its  satisfaction  in  him  who  came  to  make  free  indeed.  Yet  see  what  Mr. 
Greswell  says,  {Dissert.,  v.  2,  p.  128,  seq.,)  against  taking  Zr/?iUT^=:  Kavavtryg. 

* Augustine,  or  another  under  his  name  ( Semi . 92,  Appendix) : Nec  dedignatus 
est  conversationem  hominum,  qui  usum  carnis  exceperat.  Nec  secularia  instituta  con- 
tempsit,  qui  ad  haec  venerat  corrigenda.  Interfuit  nuptiis,  ut  concordise  jura  firmaret. 
1 ertullian,  in  his  reckless  method  of  snatching  at  any  argument,  finds  rather  a slight- 
ing of  marriage  than  an  honoring  it  in  the  fact  that  Christ,  who  was  present  at  so 
many  festivals,  was  yet  present  at  only  one  marriage.  Or  this  at  least  he  will  find, 
that  since  Christ  was  present  but  at  one  marriage,  therefore  monogamy  is  the  abso- 
lute law  of  the  new  covenant.  His  words  are  strong  (De  Monogamid,  c.  9) : Ille  vo- 
rator  et  potator  homo,  prandiorum  et  coenarum  cum  publicanis  frequentator,  semel 
apud  unas  nuptias  ccenat,  multis  utique  nubentibus.  Totiens  enim  voluit  celebrare 
eas,  quotiens  et  esse. 

f Epiphanius,  Heeres.,  67.  Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  19) : Quod  Dominus 
invitatus  venerit  ad  nuptias,  etiam  excepts  mystica  significatione,  confirmare  voluit 
quod  ipse  fecit. 

X How  precious  a witness  have  we  here  in  the  conduct  ot  our  Lord  against  the 
tendency  which  our  indolence  ever  favors,  of  giving  up  to  the  world,  or  still  worse,  to 
the  devil,  any  portion  or  passage  of  man’s  life,  which,  in  itself  innocent,  is  capable  of 
being  drawn  up  into  the  higher  world  of  holiness,  as  it  is  in  danger  of  sinking  down 
and  coming  under  the  law  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  world ! How  remarkable  a con- 
trast does  Christ’s  presence  at  this  wedding  feast  with  his  mother  and  his  disciples  offer 
to  the  manner  in  which  a man  even  of  St.  Cyprian’s  practical  strength  and  energy. 


86 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


The  presence  at  that  feast  of  himself  and  his  disciples,  who  were 
just  arrived  from  a journey,  and  whose  presence  might  therefore  have 
been  in  some  degree  unlooked  for,  may  have  increased  beyond  previous 
calculation  the  number  of  the  guests ; and  so  the  provision  made  for 
their  entertainment  may  have  proved  insufficient.  We  gather  from  ver. 
5,  where  the  mother  of  the  Lord  gives  commandment  to  the  servants, 
that  she  was  in  a house  where  it  was  not  unseemly  for  her  to  mingle, 
and  in  some  sort  to  interfere,  with  the  domestic  arrangements.  It  is 
very  possible  she  may  have  been  akin  to  one  of  the  parties.*  “ When 
they  wanted  wine”  she  was  evidently  distressed  at  their  «mbarrassment, 
and  would  willingly  have  removed  it.  Yet  what  exactly  she  should 
have  expected  from  her  divine  Son,  when  she  betook  herself  to  him, 
saying,  “ They  have  no  wine”  is  hard  to  determine.  We  know  that  this 
was  his  first  miracle,  the  “ beginning  of  miracles ,”  (ver.  11,)  so  that  she 
could  not,  from  already  having  witnessed  displays  of  his  power  and 
grace,  have  now  been  emboldened  to  look  for  more  in  the  same  kind. 
Some,  indeed,  as  Maldonatus  mentions,  and  with  whom  he  is  inclined  to 
consent,  do  not  take  so  absolutely  the  statement  which  is  there  made, 
but  with  this  limitation  understood ; — This  was  the  first  of  his  miracles 
in  which  he  showed  forth  his  glory  ; other  such  works  he  may  have  per- 
formed in  the  smaller  circle  of  his  family,  and  thus  have  prepared  those 
who  laid  up  such  things  in  their  hearts  for  something  of  the  like  kind 
now.  But  without  evading  in  this  way  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words 
of  the  Evangelist,  we  may  well  understand  how  she,  who  more  than  any 
other  had  kept  and  pondered  in  her  heart  all  the  tokens  and  prophetic  in- 
timations of  the  coming  glory  of  her  Son,  may  have  believed  that  in  him 

gives  up  these  very  marriage  festivals  as  occasions  where,  from  the  still  surviving 
heathenism  of  manners,  purity  must  suffer — where  the  flesh  must  have  its  way ; so 
that  his  counsel  is,  not  to  dispute  them  with  the  world,  not  to  vindicate  them  anew 
for  holiness  and  for  God,  but  only  to  give  them  up,  and  to  avoid  them  altogether  (JDe 
Hab.  Virg.,  c.  3) : Et  quoniam  continents  bonum  quaerimus  perniciosa  quseque  et 
infesta  vitemus.  Nee  ilia  prsetereo  quae  dum  negligentia  in  usum  veniunt,  contra 
pudicos  et  sobrios  mores  licentiam  sibi  de  usurpatione  fecerunt.  Quasdam  non  pu- 
det  nubentibus  interesse.  And  presently,  after  describing  the  disorders  of  such  sea- 
sons, he  adds,  c.  4 : Nuptiarum  festa  improba  et  convivia  lasciva  vitentur,  quorum 
periculosa  contagio  est.  Compare  the  picture  which  Chrysostom  gives  of  marriage 
festivals  in  his  time,  (v.  3,  p.  195,  Ben.  Ed.,)  melancholy  witnesses,  yet  not,  as  some 
would  have  us  believe,  of  a Church  which  had  fallen  back  into  heathen  defilements, 
but  of  one  which  had  not  as  yet  leavened  an  essentially  heathen,  though  nominally 
Christian,  society,  through  and  through  with  its  own  life  and  power. 

* Lightfoot  supposes  that  it  was  a marriage  in  the  house  of  Mary,  (John  xix.  25,) 
wife  of  Cleophas.  For  the  arguments  see  his  Harmony , in  loc.,  and  Mr.  G reswell’s 
Dissert,  v.  2,  p.  120. 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


87 


was  a latent  power  equal  to  the  present  need,  and  which  he  could  put 
forth  at  his  will,  however  he  had  restrained  it  until  now.* * * §  Others  as- 
sume that  she  had  no  definite  purpose  in  thus  speaking,  but  only  that 
as  she  had  ever  found  him  a wise  counsellor  in  the  least  as  well  as  in 
greatest  things,  so  she  turned  to  him  now.f  Bengel’s  explanation  is 
curious,  that  it  was  a suggestion  to  him  that  they  should  leave,  and  thus 
by  their  example  break  up  the  assembly  before  the  embarrassment  of 
their  hosts  should  appear.  J 

The  Romanist  expositors  have  been  very  anxious  to  rid  our  Lord’s 
answer,  “ Woman , what  have  I to  do  with  thee  of  every  shadow  of 
rebuke  or  blame.  Whole  essays  have  been  written  with  this  single 
purpose.  Now  it  is  quite  true  that  in  the  address  “ Woman”  there  is 
nothing  of  the  kind — nothing  of  severity  or  rebuke,  however  it  may  have 
something  of  such  a sound  to  an  English  ear.  We  find  our  blessed  Lord, 
even  at  the  moment  when  probably  he  was  addressing  to  his  mother  the 
last  words  that  he  spake  to  her  on  earth, -^when  commending  her  to  the 
care  of  the  beloved  disciple,  using  the  same  language,  “ Woman , behold 
thy  son.”  (John  xix.  26.)  So  far  from  any  harshness,  the  compellation 
has  something  solemn  in  it,  and  always  must  have,  where  the  dignity  of 
woman  is  felt  and  recognized.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  the  words  fol- 
lowing, “ What  have  I to  do  with  thee  £”§  If  we  compare  them  with  the 
same  or  similar  expressions  elsewhere,  the  meaning  of  them  will  come 
clearly  out,  and  it  is  this,  “ Let  me  alone ; what  is  there  common  to  thee 
and  me?  we  stand  in  this  matter  on  altogether  different  grounds.”  All 
expositors  of  the  early  Church||  have  allowed,  even  by  the  confession 


* So  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  and  Meander.  ( Leben  Jem,  p.  S'ZO.) 
f So  Cocceius:  Yerba  nihil  aliud  portendunt  quam  Mariam  tanquam  solicitam  et 
parentem  operuisse  ipsi  defectum  vini,  ex  condolentia  nimirum. 

X Velim  discedas,  ut  ceteri  item  discedant,  antequam  penuria  patefiat.  Calvin 
has  a still  more  curious  reason  for  this  suggestion:  Ut  pi&  aliqua  exhortatione  con- 

vivis  tsedium  eximeret,  ac  simul  levaret  pudorem  sponsi. 

§ T i kfiol  Kal  gol  ; Cf.  Judg.  xi.  12 ; 1 Kin.  xvii.  18  ; 2 Kin.  iii.  13,  (LXX.,)  where 
the  same  phrase  is  used ; it  is  elliptic,  and  the  word  kolvov  may  be  supplied.  Thus 
in  the  second  of  these  passages,  “ What  is  there  in  common  to  us  twain,  to  me  a 
sinful  woman,  and  thee  a man  of  God,  that  we  should  have  thus  come  together  to 
my  harm  ?”  And  in  the  third,  “ What  have  we  in  common,  I,  a prophet  of  the  true 
God,  and  thou,  the  son  of  that  idolatrous  king  Ahab,  that  thou  shouldst  ask  counsel 
of  me?”  Cf.  Josh.  xxii.  24;  2 Sam.  xvi.  10  (LXX.);  Matt.  viii.  29;  Mark  i.  24; 
Luke  viii.  28.  It  is  only  out  of  an  entire  ignorance  of  the  idiom  that  their  explana- 
tion could  have  taken  rise,  who  understand  the  words,  “ What  is  that  to  thee  and 
me  ? What  concerns  it  us  twain  that  there  is  no  wine  ?” 

||  Two  examples  for  many.  Irenaeus  ( Con . 1 Jeer.,  1.  3,  c.  16) : Properante  Maria  ad 
admirabile  vini  signum,  et  ante  tempus  volente  participare  compendii  poculo,  Domi* 


88 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


of  the  Romanists  themselves,  that  there  is  more  or  less  of  reproof  and 
repulse  in  these  words;  and  they  themselves  are  obliged. to  admit  that 
there  is  the  appearance  of  such ; but  at  the  same  time  they  deny  the 
reality.  Christ  so  spake,  they  say,*  to  teach,  not  her,  but  us,  that  they 
Were  higher  respects  than  those  of  flesh  and  blood,  even  the  everlasting 
interests  of  God’s  kingdom,  which  moved  him  to  the  choosing  the  present 
moment  for  the  first  putting  forth  of  his  divine  power.  This  is  most 
true,  that  it  was  to  teach  this ; but  to  teach  it  first  to  her,  who  from  her 
wondrous  position  as  the  mother  of  the  Lord,  was  in  chiefest  danger  of 
forgetting  it.f  “ She  had  not  yet,”  says  Chrysostom,  “ that  opinion  of 
him  which  she  ought,  but  because  she  bare  him,  counted  that,  after  the 
manner  of  other  mothers,  she  might  in  all  things  command  him,  whom 
it  was  more  fitting  for  her  to  reverence  and  worship  as  her  Lord.” 

Yet  whatever  amount  of  rebuke  was  intended,  any  harshness  which 
the  reply  may  have  in  the  reading  we  cannot  doubt  was  mitigated  by 
the  manner  of  its  speaking,  by  the  way,  too,  in  which  the  Lord  suffered 
a near  compliance  with  her  request  to  shine  through  the  apparent  refusal. 
For  when  she  said  to  the  servants,  “ Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you , do  it” 
it  is  plain  that  she  saw  in  his  seeming  denial  a real  granting  of  her  de- 
sire. Undoubtedly  there  is  something  obscure  in  that  command  follow- 
ing immediately  as  it  does  the  words  of  Christ,  “ Mine  hour  is  not  yet 
corned  For  these  words,  and  above  all,  when  taken  in  connection  with 
those  that  precede  them,  seem  to  put  off  not  merely  for  a brief  period, 
— for  a few  minutes,  or  for  an  hour, — the  manifestation  of  his  glory  as 
the  Messiah,  but  to  put  it  off  altogether  till  some  later  period  of  his 
ministry.  Indeed,  this  “ hour ” is  generally,  and  especially  in  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  John,  the  hour  of  his  passion,  or  of  his  departure  from  the 

nus  repellens  ejus  intempestivam  festinationem,  dixit.  Quid  mihi  et  tibi  est,  mulier  ? 
nondum  venit  hora  mea,  expectans  earn  horam  quae  est  a Patre  praecognita.  He  means 
by  the  compendii  poculum,  the  cup  of  -wine  which  should  not  be  the  result  of  the 
slower  and  ordinary  processes  of  nature,  but  made  per  saltura,  at  a single  interven- 
tion of  divine  power,  therefore  compendiously.  Cf.  1.  3,  c.  11,  and  Chrysostom,  (Rom. 
21  in  Joh .) : ’Ej3ov?i£TO  . . . kavrrjv  ?M/u.7rpoTtpav  Tcoirjcai  did  rov  iraidog,  therefore 
was  it  that  Christ  Ofiodporepov  dneKpivaro. 

* Maldonatus : Simulavit  se  matrem  reprehendere,  cum  minime  reprehenderet, 
ut  ostenderet  se  non  humano,  non  sanguinis  respectu,  sed  sola,  caritate,  et  ut  sese, 
quis  sit,  declaret,  miraculum  facere.  St.  Bernard  had  gone  before  him  in  this  ex- 
planation : it  was,  he  says,  for  our  sakes  Christ  so  answered,  ut  conversos  ad  Domi- 
num  jam  non  sollicitet  carnalium  cura  parentum,  et  necessitudines  illse  non  impediant 
exercitium  spirituale. 

f Horn.  21  in  Joh.  The  true  parallel  to  this  passage,  and  that  throwing  most 
light  on  it,  is  Matt.  xii.  46 — 4>0. 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


89 


world,  (John  vii.  30 ; viii.  20 ; xii.  23,  27 ; xvii.  1,* * * §)  though  in  a single 
instance,  (John  vii.  6,)  it  may  have,  as  here,  a nearer  signification.  But 
it  is  plain  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  understood  them  differently,  and,  as 
the  sequel  showed,  rightly.  “ Mine  hour  is  not  yet  come  not  till  the 
wine  is  wholly  exhausted  will  his  time  arrive ; as  yet  it  was  only  failing : 
then  will  be  the  time  to  act,  when  by  its  complete  failure,  manifest  to 
all,  the  miracle  will  be  above  suspicion.  Otherwise,  in  Augustine’s 
words,  he  might  seem  rather  to  mingle  elements  than  to  change  them.f 
When  all  other  help  fails,  then  and  not  till  then  has  Christ’s  “ hour ” 
arrived.  Luther  here  notes,  and  presents  to  us  for  an  example,  the  faith 
of  Mary,  who  from  this  apparent  repulse  could  yet  draw  forth  an  assur- 
ance that  her  petition,  whatever  may  have  been  the  error  of  pressing 
it  too  hastily,  or  other  fault  that  clung  to  it,  should  yet  in  due  time  be 
heard — so  that,  with  entire  confidence  of  this,  she  said  unto  the  servants, 
“ Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you , do  it ,”  evidently  believing  not  merely 
that  he  would  comply  with  her  request,  but  in  some  degree  guessing  at 
and  even  indicating  the  manner. 

Very  beautiful  is  it  here  to  observe  the  facility  with  which  our 
Lord  yields  himself  to  the  supply,  not  of  the  absolute  wants  merely,  but 
of  the  superfluities  of  others.  Yet  it  is  not  so  much  the  guests  whom 
he  has  in  his  eye,  as  the  bridal  pair,  whose  marriage-feast,  by  the  un- 
looked-for short-coming  of  the  wine,  was  in  danger  of  being  exposed  to 
mockery  and  scorn.];  And  the  gracious  Lord  has  sympathy  with  all 
needs — with  the  finer  as  well  as  the  commoner  needs  of  our  life.  For 
all  the  grace,  and  beauty,  and  courtesy  of  life  are  taken  account  of  in 
Christianity,  as  well  as  life’s  sterner  realities ; and  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
in  himself  and  in  his  disciples,  does  not  slight  or  despise  those  any  more 
than  these.  We  may  contrast  this  his  readiness  to  aid  others,  with  the 
strictness  with  which  he  refused  to  come  to  the  help  of  his  own  ex- 
tremest  needs.  He  who  made  wine  out  of  water,  might  have  made 
bread  out  of  stones.  But  he  will  do  nothing  at  the  suggestion  of  Satan, 
though  all  at  the  suggestion  of  love.§ 

* It  is  6 tcaipog  there,  r/  &pa  here. 

f So  the  author  of  a sermon  in  the  Appendix  to  St.  Augustine  (Semi.  92) : Hfic 
responsione  interim  debemus  advertere  quod  de  nuptiali  vino  pars  aliqua  adhuc  fort6 
resederat.  Ideo  nondum  erat  Domini  plena  hora  virtutum,  ne  miscere  magis  elementa 
quarn  mutare  videretur  [ne  aqua  vino  admixta  crederetur : Grotius].  Maldonatus : Cur 
ergo  miraculum  fecit,  si  tempus  non  venerat  ? Non  venerat,  cum  mater  petivit ; vene- 
rat  cum  fecit,  modico  licet  intervallo.  So  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Euthymius. 

\ Hilary  {De  Trin.,  1.  3,  § 5) : Sponsus  tristis  est,  familia  turbatur,  sollemnitas 
nuptialis  convivii  periclitatur. 

§ Augustine  ( Serm . 123,  c.  2):  Qui  poterat  talia  facere,  dignatus  est  indigere 
Qui  fecit  de  aqua  vinum,  potuit  facere  et  de  lapidibus  panem. 


90 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


“ There  were  set  there  six  water-pots  of  stone , after  the  manner  of  the 
purifying  of  the  Jews , containing  two  or  three  frJcins  apiece P Every 
thing  is  here  narrated,  as  Chrysostom*  observes,  so  as  to  exclude  any 
possible  semblance  of  collusion.  They  were  water-jars,  not  wine-vessels, 
so  that  none  could  say  that  very  probably  there  was  a residue  or  sedi- 
ment of  wine  remaining  in  them,  which  lent  a flavor  to  water  poured 
on  it,  and  so  formed  the  thinnest  kind  of  wine — even  as  the  same  is  wit- 
nessed against  in  the  praise  which  the  ruler  of  the  feast  bestows  upon 
the  new  supply,  (ver.  10.)  The  fact  of  these  vessels  being  at  hand  is 
no  less  accounted  for : it  was  not  by  any  premeditated  plan,  but  they 
were  there  in  accordance  with  the  customs  and  traditionary  observances 
of  the  Jews  in  the  matter  of  washing ; for  this  seems  more  probable 
than  that  this  “ purifying ” has  reference  to  any  distinctly  commanded 
legal  observances.  The  purifying  was  such  as  the  Jewish  doctors  had 
enjoined  and  made  necessary.  (Matt.  xv.  2 ; Mark  vii.  2 — i ; Luke 
xi.  39.)  The  quantity,  too,  which  these  vessels  contained,  was  enor- 
mous— not  such  as  might  have  been  brought  in  unobserved  ; but  each 
of  these  water-pots  contained  “ two  or  three  firkins  apiece .”  And  at  the 
beginning  they  were  empty ; so  that  the  servants  who,  in  obedience  to 
the  commandment,  had  filled  the  water-pots  with  water,  and  who  knew 
what  liquid  they  had  poured  in,  were  themselves,  by  this  very  work 
which  they  had  done,  witnesses  of  the  reality  of  the  miracle.  Else  it 
might  only  have  appeared,  as  in  fact  it  did  only  appear  to  the  ruler  of 
the  feast,  that  the  wine  came  from  some  unexpected  quarter ; “ He  knew 
not  whence  it  was , but  the  servants  which  drew  the  water ,”f — that  is,  not 
the  water  now  made  wine,  but  who  had  drawn  the  simpler  element, 
which  Christ  chose  to  use  as  the  substratum  on  which  he  should  after- 
wards exercise  his  miraculous  powers,  “ knew.” 

Like  most  other  acts  of  creation,  or  more  strictly,  of  becoming,  this 
of  the  water  becoming  wine,  is  withdrawn  from  sight,  and  that  which  is 
poured  into  the  jars  as  water  is  drawn  out  as  wine ; but  the  actual  pro- 
cess of  the  change  we  labor  in  vain  to  conceive.  And  yet  in  truth  it  is 
in  no  way  stranger,  save  in  the  rapidity  with  which  it  is  effected,  than  that 
which  is  every  day  going  forward  among  us,  but  to  which  use  and  custom 
have  so  dulled  our  eyes,  that  commonly  we  do  not  marvel  at  it  at  all : 

* Horn.  22  in  Joh. 

\ The  Yulgate  rightly,  Qui  hauserant.  De  Wette : Welche  das  Wasser  geschop 
fet  hatten.  So  the  Ambrosian  Hymn  : 

Yel  hydriis  plenis  aquae 
Yini  saporem  infuderis, 

Hausit  minister  conscius 
Quod  ipse  non  impleverat. 


THE  WATER  MADE  WTSTE. 


91 


and  because  we  can  call  it  by  its  name,  suppose  that  we  have  discovered 
its  secret.  He  who  does  every  year  prepare  the  wine  in  the  grape, 
causing  it  to  drink  up  and  expand  with  the  moisture  of  earth  and  hea- 
ven, to  take  this  up  into  itself,  and  transmute  into  its  own  nobler  juices, 
did  now  gather  together  all  those  his  slower  processes  into  the  act  of  a 
single  moment,  and  accomplish  in  an  instant  what  ordinarily  he  does 
not  accomplish  but  in  many  months.  This  analogy  does  not  indeed 
help  us  to  understand  what  the  Lord  did  now,  but  yet  brings  before  us 
that  in  this  he  was  working  in  the  line  of  ('above,  indeed,  but  not  across, 
or  countei  to)  his  more  ordinary  workings,  which  we  see  daily  around 
us,  the  unnoticed  miracles  of  every-day  nature.  That  which  this  had 
of  its  own  peculiar,  and  taking  it  out  from  the  order  of  these,  was  the 
power  and  will  by  which  all  the  intervening  steps  of  these  tardier  pro- 
cesses were  overleaped,  and  the  result  obtained  at  once.* * * § 

It  has  been  sometimes  debated  whether  “ the  ruler  of  the  feast 39  was 
himself  one  of  the  guests,  who  either  by  general  consent  or  the  selection 
of  the  host  was  set  over  the  banquet ; or  a chief  attendant  only,  charged 
with  ordering  the  course  of  the  feast,  and  overlooking  the  ministrations 
of  the  inferior  servants.  This  last  is  the  view  taken  by  Chrysostom  and 
others  ;f  but  the  analogy  of  Greek  and  Roman  usages J seems  rather  to 
point  him  out  as  himself  one  of  the  invited  guests,-  who  was  invested 
with  this  office  for  the  time ; and  the  passage  from  the  Son  of  Sirach 
quoted  below, § shows  that  a like  custom  was  in  use  among  the  Jews. 

* Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh .,  Tract.  8) : Ipse  enim  fecit  yinum  illo  die  in  nuptiis  in 
sex  illis  hydriis  quas  impleri  aqua  prsecepit,  qui  omni  anno  facit  hoc  in  vitibus.  Sicut 
enim  quod  miserunt  minis tri  in  hydrias,  in  yinum  conyersum  est  opere  Domini,  sic 
et  quod  nubes  fundunt,  in  yinum  convertitur  ejusdem  opere  Domini  Ulud  autem 
non  miramur,  quia  omni  anno  fit : assiduitate  amisit  admirationem.  And  again  {Sernu 
123,  c.  3) : Quse  aqua  erat,  yinum  factum  yiderunt  homines  et  obstupuerunt.  Quid 
aliud  fit  de  pluvia  per  radicem  yitis  ? Ipse  ilia  fecit,  ipse  ista ; ilia  ut  pascaris,  ista 
ut  mireris.  So  also  De  Gen.  ad  Litt,  L 6,  c.  13.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  22  in  Joh.): 
Aeucviig  on  avrog  egtlv  6 ev  ralg  dpnekoig  rd  vdug  fiera[3d?Jov,  not  rov  verov  did 
TTjg  (ti&g  eig  olvov  rperzov,  oneg  tv  tu  <pv-<p  did  icoKKoiv  xP°vov  ylverai,  tovto  udpoov 
tv  Tor  ydpu  eipyacraro.  Cf.  Gregory  the  Great,  Moral .,  L 6,  c.  15. 

f So  by  Severus ; by  Juvencus,  who  calls  him  summum  ministrum ; by  Kuinoel, 
and  others. 

X This  upxLTpiK'kivog  will  then  answer  very  much  to  the  ovpnoatdpxvc  among  the 
Greeks,  and  the  rex  convivii,  or  magister  convivii,  or  modimperator,  of  the  Romans. 
It  was  his  part,  in  the  words  of  Plato,  tt aidayuyelv  gv^tzoglov.  (Becker’s  Charicles, 
y.  1,  p.  465.)  He  appears  here  as  the  TzpoyevGTjjg.  The  word  dpxtTpU?.ivog  is  late, 
and  of  rare  occurrence ; Petronius  has  triclinarches. 

§ Sirac.  xxxil  1,  2 : “If  thou  be  made  the  master  of  a feast  { rjyovfievog ),  lift  not 
thyself  up,  but  be  among  them  as  one  of  the  rest ; take  diligent  care  of  them,  and 
so  sit  down.  And  when  thou  hast  done  all  thy  office,  take  thy  place,  that  thou 
mavest  be  merry  with  them,  and  receive  a crown  for  thy  well  ordering  of  the  feast’' 


92 


THE  WATER  MADE  WTNE. 


Indeed  the  freedom  of  remonstrance  which  he  allows  himself  with  tha 
host  seems  almost  decisive  of  his  position ; for  such  would  hardly  have 
found  place  but  from  an  equal.  To  him,  as  having  the  function  of  tast- 
ing and  distributing  the  wine,  the  Lord  commanded  that  which  he  had 
made  to  be  brought,  even  in  this  little  matter  recognizing  and  honoring 
the  established  order  and  usages  of  society,  and  giving  to  every  man 
his  due.  And  now  “ when  the  ruler  of  the  feast  had  tasted  the  water 
which  was  made  wine , and  knew  not  whence  it  was , he  called  the  bride- 
groom ,”  we  need  not  suppose  actually  summoned  him  from  his  place, 
but  he  called  tc  him,* * * §  with  something  of  a festive  exclamation,  not  un- 
suitable to  the  season,  “ Every  man  at  the  beginning  doth  set  forth  good 
wine , and  when  men  have  well  drunk , then  that  which  is  worse  :f  but  thou 
hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  now” 

Many  interpreters  have  been  very  anxious  to  rescue  the  original 
word,  which  we  have  given  by  “ well  drunk f from  involving  aught  of 
excess,  as  though,  did  it  imply  that,  we  must  necessarily  conclude  that 
the  guests  at  this  marriage  festival  had  already  drunken  too  much,  that 
this  was  one  of  the  temulenta  convivia,  which  St.  Cyprian  speaks  of  as 
too  often  disgracing  a marriage,  J with  all  the  difficulties,  of  Christ  being 
present  at  such  an  abuse  of  God’s  gifts,  and,  stranger  still,  ministering 
by  his  divine  power  to  a yet  further  excess.  But  there  is  no  need  of 
such  anxious  dealing  with  the  word.§  The  ruler  of  the  feast  is  but 
alluding  to  the  corrupt  customs  and  fashions  too  current  among  men, 
not  to  aught  which  was  necessarily  going  on  before  his  eyes — nay,  to 
something  which  certainly  was  not  so,  for  such  the  Lord  would  have  as 
little  sanctioned  by  his  presence,  as  he  would  have  helped  it  forward  by 
a wonder-work  of  his  own.  The  speaker  does  no  more  than  refer  to  a 
common  practice,  and  in  so  doing,  notices  its  cause,  namely,  that  men’s 
palates  after  a while  are  blunted,  and  their  power  of  discerning  between 
good  and  bad  lost ; and  that  then  an  inferior  wine  passes  current  with 
them,  as  it  would  not  have  done  before.  There  is  no  special  application 

* Maldonatus : Non  quod  ad  se  venire  jusserit,  quod  minimi  fuisset  urbanum,  sed 
quod  recumbentem  appellans  interrogaverit,  quid  optimum  vinum  in  finem  reservasset. 

\ ’E Xdaau  implies  at  once  worse  and  weaker.  We  have  in  English  the  same  use 
of  “ small.”  Perhaps  “ poorer”  would  be  the  nearest  word.  Pliny  in  like  manner 
(H.  N.,  1.  14,  c.  14)  speaks  of  the  meanness  of  some,  qui  convivis  alia  quam  sibi- 
met  ipsis  ministrant,  aut  jprocedente  mensd  subjiciunt. 

\ De  Hab.  Virg.,  c.  3. 

§ Augustine  indeed  goes  further  than  any,  for  he  makes  not  merely  the  guests, 
but  the  ruler  of  the  feast  himself  to  have  “well  drunk"  indeed.  The  Lord  not 
merely  made  wine,  but,  he  adds  {De  Gen.  ad  Litt.,  1.  6,  c.  13)  tale  vinum,  quod  ebrius 
etiam  conviva  laudaret. 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


93 


to  the  guests  present — except  in  the  minds  of  them  who  would  mai,  if 
by  any  means  they  could,  the  image  of  a perfect  Holiness,  which  offends 
and  rebukes  them. 

Of  a piece  with  this  is  their  miserable  objection,  who  find  the  miracle 
incredible,  since,  if  the  Lord  did  not  actually  minister  to  an  excess 
already  commenced,  yet,  by  the  creation  of  “ so  large  and  perilous  a 
quantity  of  wine,”  (for  the  quantity  was  enormous,*)  he  would  have 
put  temptation  in  men’s  way  ; — as  though  the  secret  of  temperance  lay 
in  the  scanty  supply,  and  not  in  the  strong  self-restraint  1 In  like  man- 
ner, every  gift  of  God,  every  large  abundance  of  the  vineyard,  might  be 
said  with  equal  truth  to  be  a temptation,  and  so  in  some  sort  it  is,  (com- 
pare Luke  xii.  16,)  a proving  of  men’s  temperance  and  moderation  in 
the  midst  of  abundance. f But  man  is  to  be  perfected,  not  by  being  kept 
out  of  temptation,  but  rather  by  being  victorious  in  temptation.  And 
for  this  large  giving,  it  was  only  that  which  we  should  look  for.  He,  a 
King,  gave  as  a king.  No  niggard  giver  in  the  ordinary  bounties  of  his 
kingdom  of  nature,  neither  was  he  a niggard  giver  now,  when  he  brought 
those  his  common  gifts  into  the  kingdom  of  his  grace,  and  made  them 
directly  to  serve  him  there.  (Cf.  Luke  v.  6,  7.) 

But  these  words,  “ Every  man  at  the  beginning  doth  set  forth  good 
wine  ; and  when  men  have  well  drunk , then  that  which  is  worse : but  thou 
hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  nowf  setting  forth,  as  in  the  letter  they  do, 
only  a trivial  practice  of  a poor  worldly  economy,  have  oftentimes  had 
a higher  meaning  found  for  them.  It  has  been  excellently  noticed  how 
these  very  words  may  be  used  for  the  setting  forth  the  difference  be- 
tween the  manner  and  order  of  the  world’s  giving  and  of  Christ’s  giving. 
The  man,  not  knowing  what  he  did,  gave  utterance  to  a far  larger  and 
deeper  thought  than  he  meant.  The  world  does  indeed  give  its  best  and 
its  fairest  at  the  beginning,  its  “ good  wind ’ first,  but  has  only  baser  sub- 
stitutes at  the  last.  “ When  men  have  well  drunk ,”  when  their  spiritual 

* The  Attic  [j.eTp7]Trjc  (=  (3ddog  = 72  Zecrcu  = 72  sextarii)  = 8 gallons  7.365 
pints,  imperial  measure ; so  that  each  of  these  six  vessels,  containing  two  or  three 
fiETprjraL  apiece,  did  in  round  numbers  hold  about  twenty  gallons  or  more. 

f Calvin  answers  the  objection  excellently  well : Nostro  vitio  fit,  si  ejus  benignitas 
irritamentum  est  luxurise ; quin  potius  hsec  temperantise  nostrae  vera  est  probatio,  si 
in  medii  affluentia  parci  tamen  et  moderati  sumus.  Cf.  Suicer’s  Thess.,  s.  v.  olvog.  It 
is  instructive  to  notice  the  ascetic  tone  which  Strauss  takes,  (Leben  Jem,  v.  2,  p.  229,) 
when  speaking  of  this  Luxuswundur,  as  he  terms  it,  contrasted  with  that  which  he 
assumes  when  he  desires  to  depreciate  the  character  of  John  the  Baptist ; but  truly 
he  is  of  that  generation  that  call  Jesus  a winebibber,  and  say  that  John  has  a devil ; 
with  whom  that  which  is  godlike  can  in  no  form  find  favor.  Some  of  Woolston’s 
vilest  ribaldry  ( Fourth  Discourse  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Saviour,  p.  23,  seq.)  is  spent 
upon  this  theme. 


94 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


palate  is  blunted,  when  they  have  lost  the  discernment  between  moral 
good  and  evil,  then  it  puts  upon  them  what  it  would  not  have  dared  to 
offer  at  the  first — coarser  pleasures,  viler  enjoyments,  the  swine’s  husks. 
The  world  is  for  them  that  worship  it,  even  as  that  great  image  which 
the  Babylonian  king  beheld  ; (Dan.  ii.  31 ;)  its  head,  indeed,  may  show 
as  fine  gold,  but  its  material  grows  ever  baser,  till  it  finishes  in  the  iron 
and  clay  at  the  last.  And  so  it  comes  to  pass  that 

“ To  be  a prodigal’s  favorite,  then,  worse  lot ! 

A miser’s  pensioner,” 

this  is  the  portion  of  them  that  have  entered  on  the  service  of  sin  and  of 
the  world.  But  it  is  very  otherwise  with  the  guests  of  Christ,  the  hea- 
venly bridegroom.  He  ever  reserves  for  them  whom  he  has  bidden  “ the 
good  wine ” unto  the  last.*  In  the  words  of  the  most  eloquent  of  our  di- 
vines, “ The  world  presents  us  with  fair  language,  promising  hopes,  con- 
venient fortunes,  pompous  honors,  and  these  are  the  outside  of  the  bowl.; 
but  when  it  is  swallowed,  these  dissolve  in  an  instant,  and  there  remains 
bitterness  and  the  malignity  of  coloquintida.  Every  sin  smiles  in  the 
first  address,  and  carries  light  in  the  face,  and  honey  in  the  lip,  but 
when  we  ‘ have  well  drunk ,’  then  comes  ‘ that  which  is  worse ,’  a whip 
with  six  strings,  fears  and  terrors  of  conscience,  and  shame  and  displea- 
sure, and  a caitiff  disposition,  and  diffidence  in  the  day  of  death.  But 
when  after  the  manner  of  purifying  of  the  Christians,  we  fill  our  water- 
pots  with  water,  watering  our  couch  with  our  tears,  and  moistening  our 
cheeks  with  the  perpetual  distillations  of  repentance,  then  Christ  turns 
our  water  into  wine,  first  penitents  and  then  communicants — first  waters 

* Thus  H de  St  ) Victore  {De  Arc.  Morali,  1.  1,  c.  1).  Omnis  namque  homo,  id 
est,  camalis  primum  vinum  bonum  ponit,  quia  in  sua  delectatione  falsam  quandam  dul- 
cedinem  sentit ; sed  postquam  furor  mali  desiderii  mentem  inebriaverit,  tunc  quod  de- 
tenus est  propinat,  quia  spina  conscientiae  superveniens  mentem,  quam  prius  falso  de- 
lectabat,  graviter  cruciat.  Sed  Sponsus  noster  postremo  vinum  bonum  porrigit,  dum 
mentem,  quam  sui  dulcedine  amoris  replere  disponit,  quadam  prius  tribulationum  com- 
punctione  amaricari  sinit,  ut  post  gustum  amaritudinis  avidius  bibatur  suavissimum  po- 
culum  caritatis.  Corn,  a Lapide : Hie  est  typus  fallaciae  mundi,  qui  initio  res  speciosas 
oculis  objicit,  deinde  sub  iis  deteriores  et  viles  inducit,  itaque  sui  amatores  decipit  et 
illudit.  An  unknown  author  (Bebnaedi  Opp^  v.  2,  p.  513) : In  futura  enim  vita  aqua 
omnis  laboris  et  actionis  terrenae  in  vinum  divinae  contemplationis  commutabitur,  im- 
plebunturque  omnis  hydriae  usque  ad  summum.  Omnes  enim  implebuntur  in  bonis 
domus  Domini,  cum  illae  desiderabiles  nuptiae  Sponsi  et  sponsae  celebrabuntur  ; bibe- 
turque  in  summa  laetitia  omnium  clamantium  Domino  et  dicentium ; Tu  bonum  vinum 
servasti  usque  adhuc.  I know  not  from  whence  this  line  comes, 

Hie  merum  tarde,  dat  tamen  ille  merum ; 
but  it  evidently  belongs  to  this  miracle. 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


95 


of  sorrow  and  then  the  wine  of  the  chalice ; for  Jesus  keeps  the 

best  wine  to  the  last,  not  only  because  of  the  direct  reservation  of  the 
highest  joys  till  the  nearer  approaches  of  glory,  but  also  because  our 
relishes  are  higher  after  a long  fruition  than  at  the  first  essays,  such 
being  the  nature  of  grace,  that  it  increases  in  relish  as  it  does  in  fruition, 
every  part  of  grace  being  new  duty  and  new  reward.55* 

The  Evangelist  expressly,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  pointedly,  excludes 
from  all  historic  credit  the  miracles  of  Christ’s  infancy,  of  which  so  large 
a crop  is  to  be  found  in  nearly  all  the  apocryphal  Gospels.  For,  of 
course,  he  would  not  say  merely  that  this  was  the  first  miracle  which 
Jesus  did  in  Cana,  but  that  this  miracle  in  Cana  was  the  first  which  he 
did ; it  was  for  him  the  “ beginning  of  miracles”  f The  statement  is  not 
unimportant,  nor  unconnected  with  one  of  the  main  purposes  with  which 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  was  written,  which  was  to  repel  and  remove  all 
unreal  notions  concerning  the  person  of  his  Lord,*  notions  which  nothing 
would  have  helped  more  to  uphold  than  those  merely  phantastic  and  ca- 
pricious miracles, — favorites,  therefore,  with  all  manner  of  Docetic  here- 
tics,— which  are  ascribed  to  his  infancy.  J 

But  in  this  work  of  his  he  “ manifested  forth  his  glory  f words  that 
could  be  used  of  no  lesser  than  the  Son ; for  all  others  would  have  man- 
ifested forth  the  glory  of  another,  but  he  his  own.  And  this,  because 
the  word  “ glory ” is  to  be  taken  emphatically ; it  is  not  merely  his  ex- 
cellent greatness,  but  his  divinity : for  the  glory  (<L'fa)  is  a divine  attri- 
bute ; it  is  comprehended  and  involved  in  the  idea  of  the  Logos  as  the 
absolute  Light : as  such  he  rays  forth  light  from  himself,  and  this  efflu- 
ence is  “ his  glory”  (John  i.  14;  Matt.  xvi.  27 ; Mark  viii.  38.)  This 
“ glory”  during  the  time  that  the  Son  of  God  sojourned  upon  earth,  for 
the  most  part  was  hidden ; the  covering  of  the  flesh  concealed  it  from 

* J.  Taylor,  Life  of  Christ.  With  this  may  be  fitly  joined  that  exquisite  poem, 
with  which  every  one  is  familiar,  in  The  Christian  Tear,  that  upon  the  second  Sun- 
day after  Epiphany,  suggested  by  this  miracle,  the  Gospel  of  that  day,  and  which  is 
the  unfolding  of  the  same  thought. 

f Thus  Tertullian  (De  JBapt,  c.  9)  calls  it,  prima  rudimenta  potestatis  suae.  And 
this  day  has  been  called  Dies  natalis  virtutum  Domini. 

\ This  statement  of  St.  John  has  ever  been  used  in  the  Church  as  a decisive  testi- 
mony exclusive  of  all  these  ; thus  by  Epiphanius,  ( Hcer .,  51,  § 20,)  from  whose  words 
it  would  appear  that  some  Catholics  were  inclined  to  admit  these  miracles  of  the  In- 
fancy, as  affording  an  argument  against  the  Cerinthians,  and  in  proof  that  it  was  not 
at  his  baptism  first  that  the  Christ  was  united  to  the  man  Jesus.  And  Euthymius  (in 
loc.)  finds  in  St.  John’s  words  a distinct  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist  to  ex- 
clude, all  wonders  that  were  recorded  as  going  before.  St.  John,  he  says,  loTopTjoev 
avro,  xpr/cnyevov  etc  to  prj  moTevetv  rolg  leyo/xevoig  'xaidinoZg  Oavpaoi  rov  Xpiarov.  C£ 
Chrysostom,  Horn.  16 ; 20 ; 22  in  Joh. ; and  Thilo,  Cod.  Apocryph.,  p.  lxxxiv.  seq. 


96 


THE  WATER  MADE  WTNE. 


men’s  eyes : but  in  this  miracle,  this  work  of  his  power,  St.  John  would 
say,  it  broke  through  this  its  fleshly  covering,  and  manifested  itself  to  the 
spiritual  eyes  of  his  disciples ; they  “ beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.”*  And  as  a consequence,  “ his  disci- 
ples believed  on  him,”  The  work,  besides  its  more  immediate  purpose, 
had  a further  end  and  aim,  the  confirming  their  faith,  who  already  be- 
lieving in  him,  were  therefore  the  more  capable  of  receiving  increase  of 
faith, — of  being  lifted  from  faith  to  faith,  from  faith  in  an  earthly  teacher 
to  faith  in  a heavenly  Lord.f 

It  was  said  at  the  outset,  that  this  first  miracle  of  our  Lord’s  had  its 
inner  mystical  meaning.  The  first  miracle  of  Moses  was  the  turning  of 
water  into  blood,  (Exod.  vii.  20,)  and  that  had  its  own  fitness,  for  the 
law  was  a ministration  of  death  and  working  wrath  but  the  first 

* The  Eastern  Church,  as  is  well  known,  counted  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  being  his 
recognition  before  men  and  by  men  in  his  divine  character,  for  the  great  manifesting 
of  his  glory  to  the  world,  for  his  Epiphany , and  was  wont  to  celebrate  it  as  such. 
But  the  Western,  which  laid  not  such  stress  on  the  Baptism,  saw  his  Epiphany  rather 
in  the  adoration  of  the  Magians,  the  first  fruits  and  representatives  of  the  heathen 
world.  At  a later  period,  indeed,  it  placed  other  great  moments  in  his  life,  moments 
in  which  his  divine  majesty  gloriously  shone  out,  in  connection  with  this  festival ; such, 
for  instance,  as  the  Baptism,  as  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  as  this  present 
miracle,  which  last  continually  affords  the  theme  to  the  later  writers  of  the  Western 
Church  for  the  homily  at  Epiphany,  as  it  gives  us  the  Gospel  for  one  of  the  Epiphany 
Sundays.  But  these  secondary  allusions  belong  not  to  the  first  introduction  of  the 
feast,  so  that  the  following  passage  should  have  prevented  the  editors  of  the  new 
volume  of  St.  Augustine’s  sermons,  ( Serm . Inediti , Paris,  1842,)  from  attributing  the 
sermon  which  contains  it  (Serm.  38,  in  Epiph.)  to  that  father : Hodiernam  diem  Ec- 
clesia  per  orbem  celebrat  totum,  sive  quod  stella  prae  ceteris  fulgens  divitibus  Magis 
parvum  non  parvi  Regis  monstravit  hospitium,  sive  quod  hodie  Christus  primum 
fecisse  dicitur  signum,  quando  aquas  repente  commutavit  in  vinum,  sive  quod  a 
Joanne  isto  die  creditur  baptizatus  et  Patris  consona  voce  Dei  filius  revelatur.  The 
same  mark  of  a later  origin  is  about  several  other  sermons  which  they  have  printed 
as  his.  In  his  genuine,  he  knows  only  of  the  adoration  of  the  wise  men  as  the  fact 
which  this  festival  of  the  Epiphany  commemorates. 

f This  is  plainly  the  true  explanation,  (in  the  words  of  Ammonius,  'KpoaB’pKrjv 
tbe^avro  Tiva  rr/g  elg  avrov  mareug,)  and  not  that,  which  Augustine,  (Be  Cons.  Evany., 
1.  2,  c.  17,)  for  the  interests  of  his  harmony,  upholds,  that  they  are  here  called  “ dis- 
ciples” by  anticipation ; because  subsequently  to  the  miracle  they  believed ; (non 
jam  discipulos,  sed  qui  futuri  erant  discipuli  intelligere  debemus ;)  as  one  might  say, 
The  apostle  Paul  was  born  at  Tarsus. 

\ Yet  as  Moses  has  here,  where  he  stands  in  contrast  to  Christ,  a mutatio  in  deterius, 
so  in  another  place,  where  he  stands  as  his  type,  he  has,  like  him,  a mutatio  in  melius, 
(Exod.  xiv.  25,)  changing  the  bitter  waters  to  sweet ; and  so  not  less  Elisha  (2  Kin.  ii. 
19 — 22) ; however  the  more  excellent  transmutation,  which  should  be  not  merely  the 
rectifying  of  qualities  already  existing,  but  imparting  of  new  qualities,  was  reserved  for 


THE  WATER  MADE  WIHE. 


97 


miracle  of  Christ  was  the  turning  of  water  into  wine,  and  this  too  was 
a meet  inauguration  of  the  rest,  for  his  was  a ministration  of  life ; he 
came,  bringing  joy  and  gladness,  the  giver  of  the  true  wine  that  maketh 
glad  the  hearts  of  men. — There  is,  too,  another  prophetic  aspect  under 
which  this  turning  of  the  water  into  wine  has  been  often  contemplated, 
another,  though  in  truth  but  a different  aspect  of  the  same, — that  even 
so  should  Christ  turn  the  poorer  dispensation,  the  weak  and  watery  ele- 
ments of  the  Jewish  religion,  (Heb.  vii.  18,)  into  richer  and  nobler,  the 
gladdening  wine  of  a higher  faith.  The  whole  Jewish  dispensation  in  its 
comparative  weakness  and  poverty  was  aptly  symbolized  by  the  water, 
and  only  in  type  and  prophecy  could  it  tell  of  him  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
who  should  come  “ binding  his  foal  unto  the  vine,  and  his  ass’s  colt 
unto  the  choice  vine;”  of  whom  it  is  said,  “he  washed  his  garments 
in  wine  and  his  clothes  in  the  blood  of  grapes”  (Gen.  xlix.  11;  cf. 
John  xv.  1);  but  now  by  this  work  of  his  he  gave  token  that  he  had 
indeed  come  into  the  midst  of  his  people,  that  their  joy  might  be  full.* 

the  Son ; who  was  indeed  not  an  ameliorator  of  the  old  life  of  men,  but  the  bringer 
in  of  a new  life — not  a reformer,  but  a regenerator. 

* Corn,  a Lapide : Christus  ergo  initio  sum  praedicationis  mutans  aquam  in  vinum 
significabat  se  legem  Mosaicam,  instar  aquae  insipidam  et  frigidam,  conversurum  in 
Evangelium  gratiae,  quae  instar  vini  est,  generosa,  sapida,  ardens,  et  efficax.  And  Ber- 
nard, in  a pre-eminently  beautiful  sermon  upon  this  miracle,  (Bened.  Ed.,  p.  814,)  has 
in  fact  the  same  interpretation : Tunc  [aqua]  mutatur  in  vinum,  cum  timor  expellitur 
a caritate,  et  implentur  omnia  fervore  spiritus  et  jucunda  devotione  ; cf.  De  Divers 
Serm.  18,  c.  2;  and  Eusebius  (Dem.  Evang.  1.  9,  c.  8):  'Zvpfio’kov  rjv  to  napado^ov 
pvoTLKurepov  Kpdparog,  pETa^TjOevrog  e/c  rrjg  cupariKurepag  ettI  Trjv  voepav  ical  irvev- 
parua jv  £i'<j)poGvvr]v  rov  tuctikov  rrjg  naivT/g  AiadrjKrjg  Kpdparog.  Augustine  is  in  the 
same  line,  when  he  says  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract  9) : Tollitur  velamen,  cum  transieris  ad 
Dominum,. . . .et  quod  aqua  erat,  vinum  tibi  fit.  Lege  libros  omnes  propheticos,  non 
intellecto  Christo,  quid  tarn  insipidum  et  fatuum  invenies  ? Intellige  ibi  Christum, 
non  solum  sapit  quod  legis,  sed  etiam  inebriat.  He  illustrates  this  from  Luke  xxiv. 
25 — 27.  Gregory  the  Great  (Horn.  6 in  Ezek .)  gives  it  another  turn : Aquam  nobis  in 
vinum  vertit,  quando  ipsa  historia  per  allegorise  mysterium,  in  spiritalem  nobis  intel- 
ligentiam  commutatur, — Before  the  rise  of  the  Eutychian  heresy  had  made  it  clearly 
unadvisable  to  use  such  terms  as  tcpuaig,  uvaKpaaig,  ptijig,  to  designate  the  union  of  the 
two  natures  in  Christ,  or  such  phrases  as  Tertullian’s  Deo  mixtus  homo,  we  sometimes 
find  allusions  to  what  Christ  here  did,  as  though  it  were  symbolical  of  the  ennobling 
of  the  human  nature  through  its  being  transfused  by  the  divine  in  his  person.  Thus 
Irenaeus  (1.  5,  c.  1,  § 3)  complains  of  the  Ebionites,  that  they  cling  to  the  first  Adam 
who  was  cast  out  of  Paradise,  and  will  know  nothing  of  the  second,  its  restorer : 
Reprobant  itaque  hi  commixtionem  vini  coelestis,  et  solam  aquam  secularem  volunt 
esse.  So  Dorner  (Von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  57)  understands  this  passage:  yet  it 
is  possible  that  here  may  be  allusion  rather  to  their  characteristic  custom  of  using 
water  alone,  instead  of  wine  mingled  with  water,  in  the  Holy  Communion : the 
passage  will  even  then  show  how  Irenaeus  found  in  the  wine  and  in  the  water,  the 
apt  symbols  of  the  higher  and  the  lower,  of  the  divine  and  human. 


98 


THE  WATER  MADE  WINE. 


And  apart  from  all  that  is  local  and  temporary,  this  miracle  may  be 
taken  as  the  sign  and  symbol  of  all  which  Christ  is  evermore  doing  in  the 
world,  ennobling  all  that  he  touches,  making  saints  out  of  sinners,  angels 
out  of  men,  and  in  the  end  heaven  out  of  earth,  a new  paradise  of  God 
out  of  the  old  wilderness  of  the  world.  For  the  prophecy  of  the  world’s 
regeneration  of  the  day  in  which  his  disciples  shall  drink  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine  new  in  his  kingdom,  is  eminently  here ; — in  this  humble  feast, 
the  rudiments  of  the  great  festival  which  shall  be  at  the  open  setting  up 
of  his  kingdom— that  marriage  festival  in  which  he  shall  be  himself  the 
Bridegroom  and  his  Church  the  bride, — that  season  when  his  “ hour ” 
shall  have  indeed  “ come” 

Irenseus*  has  an  interesting  passage,  in  which  he  puts  together  this 
miracle  and  that  of  the  loaves,  and,  as  I think,  contemplates  them  to- 
gether as  a prophecy  of  the  Eucharist,  but  certainly  sees  them  as  alike 
witnesses  against  all  Gnostic  notions  of  a creation  originally  impure. 
The  Lord,  he  says,  might  have  created  with  no  subjacent  material  the 
wine  with  which  he  cheered  these  guests,  the  bread  with  which  he  fed 
those  multitudes ; but  he  rather  chose  to  take  his  Father’s  creatures  on 
which  to  put  forth  his  power,  in  witness  that  it  was  the  same  God  who 
at  the  beginning  had  made  the  waters  and  caused  the  earth  to  bear  its 
fruits,  who  did  in  those  last  days  give  by  his  Son  the  cup  of  blessing 
and  the  bread  of  heaven,  f 

* Con.  Hcer.,  1.  3,  c.  11 ; Chrysostom  in  like  manner,  in  regard  to  the  Mani- 
chssans,  Horn.  22  in  Joh. 

f The  account  of  this  miracle  by  Sedulius  is  a favorable  specimen  of  his  poetry  : 

Prima  sure  Dominus  thalarais  dignatus  adesse 
Virtutis  documenta  dedit ; convivaque  prreseca 
Pascere  non  pasci  veniens,  mirabile ! fusas 
In  vinum  convertit  aquas ; dimittere  gaudent 
Pallorem  latices ; mutavit  Iresa  [!reta?]  saporem 
Unda  suum,  largita  merum,  mensasque  per  omnes 
Dulcia  non  nato  rubuerunt  pocula  musto. 

Implevit  sex  ergo  lacus  hoc  nectare  Christus, 

Quippe  f'erax  qui  Vitis  erat,  virtute  colona 
Omnia  fructificans,  cujus  sub  tegmine  blando 
Mitis  inocciduas  enutrit  pampinus  uvas. 

In  very  early  times  it  was  a favorite  subject  for  Christian  art.  On  many  of  the  old 
sarcophagi  Jesus  is  seen  standing  and  touching  with  the  rod  of  Moses,  the  rod  of 
might  which  is  generally  placed  in  his  hand  when  he  is  set  forth  as  a worker  of  won- 
ders, three  vessels  resting  on  the  ground, — three,  because  in  their  skilless  delinea- 
tions the  artists  could  not  manage  to  find  room  for  more.  Sometimes  he  has  a roll 
of  writing  in  his  hand,  as  much  as  to  say,  This  is  written  in  the  Scripture  ; or  the 
master  of  the  feast  is  somewhat  earnestly  rebuking  the  bridegroom  for  having  kept 
the  good  wine  till  last ; having  himself  tasted,  he  is  giving  him  the  cup  to  convince 
him  of  his  error.  (Munter,  Sinnbild.d.  Alt.  Christ .,  v.  2,  p.  92.) 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  NOBLEMAN’S  SON. 


John  iv.  46 — 54. 


There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  in  the  words  that  introduce  tms 
miracle.  It  is  there  said  that  Jesus  “ went  into  Galilee,  for  he  himself 
testified  that  a prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own  country,”  and  yet 
Galilee  was  his  own  country,  and  immediately  after  we  are  told  that  the 
Galilseans  “received,”*  or  gave  him  honorable  welcome.  This  how- 
ever is  easily  got  rid  of ; yet  not  as  Tittmann,  and  some  of  the  older 
expositors  propose,  by  making  St.  John,  in  fact,  to  say  that  the  Lord 
went  into  Galilee,  though  he  had  testified  that  a prophet  was  unhonored 
at  home ; for  there  is  no  compelling  the  words  to  mean  this ; nor  yet 
by  understanding  “his  own  country”  as  Judaea,  and  then  finding  in 
this  saying  of  his  an  explanation  of  his  retiring  from  thence  into  Gal- 
ilee. This  is  Origen’s  explanation,  whom  some  moderns  follow.  But 
the  Lord’s  birth  at  Bethlehem  in  Judaea  being  a fact  not  generally 
known,  the  slight  esteem  in  which  he  was  there  held,  could  not  have 
had  in  this  its  ground.  Rather  we  must  accept  “country”f  as  the 
place  where  he  had  been  brought  up,  namely,  Nazareth,  and  then  there 
is  here  an  explanation  of  his  not  returning  thither,  (with  a direct  allu- 
sion to  the  testimony  which  he  himself  had  borne  in  its  synagogue, 
“No  prophet  is  accepted  in  his  own  country,”  Luke  iv.  24,)  but 
going  in  preference  to  Cana,  and  other  cities  of  Galilee;  “and  the 

* ’E detjavro,  Benevolo  et  honorific^  exceperunt : so  often  elsewhere. 

f II arpig,  cf.  Matt.  xiii.  54,  57  ; Mark  vi.  1,  4;  Luke  iv.  16.  Chrysostom  (Horn. 
35  in  Joh.)  has  this  right  view  of  the  meaning,  with  the  exception,  indeed,  of  under- 
standing by  “his  own  country,”  Capernaum  (Luke  x.  15)  rather  than  Nazareth; 
efxapTvprjGS  will  then  have  the  sense  of  a plusq.  perf.,  of  which  there  are  several 
instances  in  the  New  Testament. 


100 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  NOBLEMAN’S  SON. 


Galileans,”  as  St.  John,  with  an  emphasis,  relates,  “received  him,” 
though  the  Nazarenes,  the  people  of  his  own  immediate  city,  had  re- 
jected, and  would  have  killed  him.* 

In  treating  of  this  miracle,  the  first  question  which  occurs  is  this, 
namely,  whether  we  have  here  the  same  history  as  that  of  the  servant 
(rfa Tg)  of  the  centurion  related  by  St.  Matthew  (viii.  5),  and  St.  Luke 
(vii.  2),  and  here  repeated  with  only  immaterial  variations.  Irenseusf 
would  seem  to  have  looked  at  them  as  one  and  the  same  history ; and 
Chrysostom  and  others  note  such  an  opinion  as  held  by  some  in  their 
time,  though  they  themselves  oppose  it.  And  this  rightly,  for  there  is 
almost  nothing  in  its  favor.  Not  merely  the  external  circumstances  are 
greatly  different;  that  centurion  being  a heathen,  this  nobleman J;  in 
every  probability  a Jew  ; that  one  pleading  for  his  servant,  this  for  his 
son ; that  intercession  finding  place  as  the  Lord  was  entering  Caper- 

* There  is  another  view  of  the  passage  possible,  namely  that  St.  John,  recording 
(ver.  43)  Christ’s  return  to  Galilee,  is  explaining  why  he  should  have  first  left  it, 
(ver.  44,)  and  why  he  should  have  returned  to  it  now,  (ver.  45.)  He  left  it,  because 
as  he  had  himself  testified,  ( ejuapTypT/ae , a first  aorist  for  a plusq.  perfect,)  a prophet 
is  unlionored  in  his  own  country,  but  he  returned  to  it  now,  because  his  countrymen, 
the  Galileeans,  having  seen  the  signs  .that  he  did  at  Jerusalem,  were  prepared  to 
welcome,  and  did  welcome  him,  in  quite  another  spirit  from  that  which  they  mani- 
fested at  his  first  appearance  ; “ So  (ver.  46)  Jesus  came  again  into  Cana  of  Galilee.” 
This  is  Neander’s  explanation,  (Leben  Jesu , p.  385,)  and  Jacobi’s,  in  the  Theol.  Stud, 
und  Krit.,  1836,  p.  906. 

f Con.  Hcer.,  L 2,  c.  22.  Filium  Centurionis  absens  verbo  curavit  dicens,  Yade, 
filius  tuus  vivit.  Yet  Centurionis  may  well  be  only  a slip  of  the  pen  or  the  memory. 
In  modern  times  only  Semler  that  I know,  has  held  the  same  opinion. 

% The  term  ftaoihucoc  tells  rather  against  that  view ; since  it  is  little  probable 
that  any  military  office  is  denoted  by  it.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  word  here  never 
can  be  exactly  fixed ; even  Chrysostom  (Horn.  35  in  Joh.)  speaks  uncertainly  about  it, 
and  only  suggests  a meaning ; showing  that  even  in  his  day  it  was  not  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  familiar  usage  of  them  with  whom  Greek  was  a living  language. 
Three  meanings  have  been  offered.  Either  by  the  pacihucog  is  meant  one  of  those 
that  -were  of  the  king’s  party,  the  royalists,  in  which  case  the  term  would  be  much 
the  same  as  Herodian,  designating  one  of  those  that  sided  with  the  faction  of  the 
Herods,  father  and  son,  and  helped  to  maintain  them  on  the  throne  (Lightfoot) ; or, 
with  something  of  a narrower  signification,  the  (3aai7uKog  may  be  one  especially 
attached  to  the  court,  aulicus,  or  as  Jerome  (In  AW.  65)  calls  this  man,  palatinus 
(Regulus  qui  Greece  dicitur  flaaiTanog,  quem  nos  de  aula  regia  rectius  interpretari  pos- 
sumus  palatinum) ; thus  in  the  margin  of  our  Bibles  it  is  “ courtier or  else,  though  this 
seems  here  the  least  probable  supposition,  (SaoiliKog  may  mean  one  of  royal  blood  ; so 
in  Lucian  the  word  is  four  times  applied  to  those  who  are  actually  kings,  or  are 
related  to  them.  Perhaps  no  better  term  could  be  found  than  that  of  our  English 
version,  “ nobleman ,”  which  has  something  of  the  doubtfulness  of  the  original  ex- 
pression, and  while  it  does  not  require,  yet  does  not  deny  that  he  was  of  roval  blood. 


THE  HEALING!  OF  THE  NOBLEMAN^  SON. 


101 


naum,  this  in  Cana;  in  that  the  petitioner  sending  by  others,  in  this 
himself  coming : the  sickness  there  a paralysis,  a fever  here.  But  fai 
more  than  all  this,  the  heart  and  inner  kernel  of  the  two  narratives  is 
different.  That  centurion  is  an  example  of  a strong  faith,  this  noble- 
man of  a weak  faith;  that  centurion  counts  that,  if  Jesus  will  but 
speak  the  word,  his  servant  will  be  healed,  while  this  nobleman  is  so 
earnest  that  the  Lord  should  come  down,  because  in  heart  he  limits  his 
power,  and  counts  that  nothing  but  his  actual  presence  will  avail  to  heal 
his  sick;  the  other  receives  praise,  this  rebuke,  at  the  lips  of  Christ. 
The  difference  is  Indeed  here  so  striking,  that  Augustine*  draws  a com- 
parison, by  way  of  contrast,  between  the  faith  of  that  centurion,  and 
the  unbelief  of  this  nobleman. 

Against  all  this,  the  points  of  apparent  identity  are  very  slight,  as 
the  near  death  of  the  sufferer,  the  healing  at  a distance  and  by  a word, 
and  the  returning  and  finding  him  healed.  It  is  nothing  strange  that 
two  miracles  should  have  these  circumstances  in  common. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  f that  this  nobleman  is  no  other  than 
Chuza,  Herod’s  steward,  whose  wife  was  among  the  holy  women  that 
ministered  unto  the  Lord  of  their  substance  (Luke  viii.  3 ; cf.  ver.  53). 
This  is  not  wholly  improbable;'  for  it  would  seem  as  if  only  some 
mighty  and  marvellous  work  of  this  kind  would  have  drawn  a steward 
of  Herod’s  with  his  family,  into  the  net  of  the  Gospel.  But  whether 
this  was  so  or  not,  he  leaving  his  son  exceeding  sick  at  Capernaum,  now 
came  and  found  Jesus,  who  was  just  returned  from  his  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem, in  Cana  of  Galilee,  “ and  besought  him  that  he  would  come  down 
and  heal  his  son , for  he  was  at  the  point  of  deaths  From  the  something 
of  severity  which  comes  out  in  our  Lord’s  first  notice  of  his  petition, 
“ Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders , ye  will  not  believe ,”  J it  is  evident  that 

* In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  16:  Yidete  distinctionem.  Regulus  iste  Dominum  ad 
domum  suam  descendere  cupiebat ; ille  Centurio  indignum  se  esse  dicebat.  Illi 
dicebatur,  Ego  veniam,  et  curabo  eum:  huic  dictum  est,  Yade,  filius  tuus  vivit  Illi 
praesentiam  promittebat,  hunc  verbo  sanabat.  Iste  tamen  praesentiam  ejus  extorque- 
bat.  ille  se  praesentia  ejus  indignum  esse  dicebat.  Hie  cessum  est  elationi;  illic 
concessum  est  humilitati.  Cf.  Chrysostom,  Horn.  35  in  Joh. 

f Lightfoot,  Chemnitz,  and  others. 

% This  passage,  with  that  other  in  which  the  Lord  declines  to  give  a sign  to  some 
that  asked  it,  dismissing  them  to  the  sign  of  Jonah,  (Matt.  xii.  38 — 40 ; xvi.  1 — 4,) 
are  favorite  passages  with  those  who  deny  that  he  laid  any  especial  stress  on  his  mira- 
cles, as  proving  any  thing  concerning  him ; that  other  has  been  stretched  so  far  by 
some  as  to  be  brought  in  proof  that  he  did  not  even  claim  to  do  any.  'Thus  by  the 
modern  rationalists,  though  the  abuse  of  the  passage  is  as  old  as  Aquinas,  who  takes 
note  of  and  rebukes  it.  But  our  Lord’s  words  have  not  any  such  meaning,  and  it  may 
be  worth  while  to  show  how  far  they  are  from  bearing  out  any  such  conclusion.  The 


102 


THE  HEALING  OE  THE  NOBLEMAN^  SON. 


this  nobleman  was  one  driven  to  Jesus  by  the  strong  constraint  of  an 
outward  need,  a need  which  no  other  but  he  could  supply,  (Isai.  xxvi. 
16,)  rather  than  one  drawn  by  the  inner  necessities  and  desires  of  his 
soul ; — a man  who  would  not  have  come  but  for  this  :*  who  shared  in 
the  carnal  temper  of  the  most  of  his  fellow-countrymen  (they,  by  the 
plural  number  which  our  Lord  here  uses,  being,  it  is  most  probable,  in- 
tended to  be  included  in  the  same  condemnation) ; — one  who  had  (as 
yet,  at  least)  no  organ  for  perceiving  the  glory  of  Christ  as  it  shone  out 
in  his  person  and  in  his  doctrine,- — whom  nothing  but  miracles,  “ signs 
and  ivonders ,”  would  compel  to  a belief;  unlike  those  Samaritans  whom 
the  Lord  has  just  left,  and  who,  without  a miracle,  had  in  great  num- 
bers “believed  because  of  his  word.”  (John  iv.  41.)  But  “the  Jews 
required  ,a  sign,”  (1  Cor.  i.  22,)  and  this  one,  in  the  smallness  of  his 
present  faith,  straitened  and  limited  the  power  of  the  Lord,  counting  it 
needful  that  he  should  “ come  down”\  if  his  son  was  to  be  healed ; 
being  unable  to  conceive  of  any  other  cure,  of  any  wrord  spoken  at  a 

Lord  says,  There  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  them,  the  men  who  out  of  an  unbelieving 
heart  asked  one,  the  same  who  but  a little  before  had  ascribed  his  miracles  to  Beelze- 
bub. (Matt.  xii.  24.)  “ An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a sign,  and 
there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas,” — not,  that  is,  to 
that  evil  and  adulterous  generation.  The  only  sign  for  it  is  the  appearance  in  the 
midst  of  it,  of  a warning  prophet,  a prophet  of  woe,  a second  and  greater  Jonah,  with 
his  burden  of  near  judgment,  proclaiming  that  in  forty  years  shall  Jerusalem  be  de- 
stroyed; the  same  being  sealed  by  the  wondrous  circumstances  of  his  life,  by  his 
resurrection,  as  Jonah  by  his  deliverance  from  the  whale’s  belly,  to  be  indeed  the  com- 
missioned of  the  Lord.  Christ  does  not  deny  the  value  of  the  miracle,  or  say  that  hr> 
will  do  none ; but  only  that  he  will  do  none  for  them,  for  an  evil  and  adulterous  gene- 
ration which  is  seeking  not  after  helps  and  confirmations  of  faith,  but  excuses  and 
subterfuges  for  unbelief.  These  works  of  grace  and  power  are  reserved  for  those  who 
are  receptive  of  impressions  from  them.  They  are  seals  which  are  to  seal  softened 
hearts ; hearts  utterly  cold  and  hard  would  take  no  impression  from  them,  and 
therefore  will  :ot  be  tried  with  them.  So  that  this  is  not,  in  fact,  a slight  put  upou 
miracles,  but  an  honoring  of  them.  There  are  those  upon  whom  they  shall  not  be 
wasted. 

* Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  16)  reads  the  words  of  Christ  as  implying  that 
this  nobleman  did  not  believe  that  Christ  could  do  this  very  thing  which  he  was  asking 
of  him.  It  was  but  a tentative  request : in  the  utter  lack  of  help  any  where,  he 
snatched  at  what  seemed  to  him,  even  while  he  was  snatching  at  it,  but  as  a straw, 
and  so  he  received  this  rebuke : Arguit  hominem  in  fide  tepidum  aut  frigidum,  aut 
omnino  nullius  fidei : sed  tentare  cupientem  de  sanitate  filii  sui,  qualis  esset  Christus, 
quis  esset,  quantum  posset.  Yerba  enim  rogantis  audivimus,  cor  diffidentis  non  vi- 
demus;  sed  ille  pronuntiavit,  qui  et  verba  audivit,  et  cor  inspexit.  Yet  the  earnest- 
ness of  the  man’s  rejoinder,  “ Sir,  come  down  ere  my  son  die ,”  is  very  unlike  this. 

f Gregory  the  Great  {Horn.  28  in  Evany.) : Minus  itaque  iu  ilium  credidit,  quern 
non  putavit  posse  salutem  dare,  nisi  prsesens  esset  in  corpore. 


THE  HEALHSTGr  OF  THE  NOBLEMANS  SOFT.  103 

distance  and  yet  mighty  to  save.*  Not  that  we  are  to  suppose  that  the 
Lord  thus  speaking  meant  to  cast  any  slight  on  the  significance  of  mira- 
cles, only  they  are  not  to  serve  for  this,  namely,  to  compel  the  reluctant 
and  unbelieving  to  the  faith,  but  to  confirm  the  mission  of  a divine  am- 
bassador before  them  that  have  already  been  taken  hold  of  by  the  power 
of  the  truth. 

Yet,  as  Bengel  observes,  there  is  a beautiful  admixture  in  this 
answer,  of  rebuke  and  encouragement;  an  implied  promise  of  a mira- 
cle, even  while  the  man  is  blamed,  that  he  needeth  this,  that  nothing 
short  of  this  would  induce  him  to  put  his  trust  in  the  Lord  of  life.f 
And  so  the  man  accepts  it;  for  he  does  not  suffer  himself  to  be  repelled 
by  this  word  of  a seeming,  and  indeed  of  a real  severity  ; rather  he  now 
presses  on  the  more  earnestly,  “ Sir,  come  down\  ere  my  child  die — 
still,  it  is  true,  not  guessing  of  any  other  help  save  through  the  Lord’s 
bodily  presence ; still  far  off  from  the  faith  and  humility  of  that  centu- 
rion, who  said,  “ Lord,  I am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldest  come  under 
my  roof ; but  speak  the  word  only,  and  my  servant  shall  be  healed ;” — 
much  less  dreaming  of  a power  that  could  raise  the  dead ; it  must  be 
“ ere  my  child  die ,”  or  the  help  will  be  too  late.  Therefore  that  gracious 
Lord,  who  had  always  the  higher  good  of  those  who  came  in  contact 
with  him  in  his  eye,  again  tries  his  faith,  and  in  the  trying  strengthens 
it,  sending  him  away  with  a mere  word  of  assurance  that  it  should  go 
well  with  his  child  ; “ Go  thy  way , thy  son  liveth .”  And  the  nobleman 
was  contented  with  that  assurance ; he  “ believed  the  word  that  Jesus  had 
spoken  unto  him , and  he  went  his  way ,”  expecting  to  find  that  it  should 
be  done  according  to  that  word. 

There  is  here  again  something  to  be  learned  by  a comparison  of  the 
Lord’s  dealing  with  this  man  and  with  the  centurion  of  the  other  Gos- 
pels. Here  being  entreated  to  come,  he  does  not,  but  sends  his  healing 
word.  There,  being  asked  to  speak  that  word  of  healing,  he  rather 
proposes  himself  to  come ; for  here,  as  Chrysostom,  unfolding  the  mo 
tives  of  his  different  conduct  in  the  two  instances,  well  brings  out,  a 

* Bengel  will  have  this  to  be  the  especial  point  of  the  whole  answer,  laying  the 
entire  emphasis  thus : “ Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders,  ye  will  not  believe Innuit 
Jesus  se  etiam  absenti  reguli  filio  posse  vitam  dare ; et  postulat  ut  regulus  id  credat, 
neque  profectionem  Jesu  postulet  suscipiendam  cum  ipso  sanationem  apud  lectulum 
visuro.  Others  have  done  the  same  : see  Kocher’s  Analecta  {in  loc.) 

f Simul  autem  miraculum  promittitur,  fidesque  prius  etiam  desideratur,  et  dum 
desideratur,  excitatur.  Responsum  externa  quadam  repulsse  specie  et  tacita  opis 
promissione  mixtum,  congruit  sensui  rogantis  ex  fide  et  imbecillitate  mixto. 

^ K ard(37]6i,  Capernaum  lying  upon  the  shore,  and  lower  than  Cana,  where  now 
they  were. 


104 


THE  HEALIHH  OF  THE  NOBLEMANS  SON-. 


narrow'  and  poor  faith  is  enlarged  and  deepened,  there  a strong  faith  is 
crowned  and  rewarded.  By  not  going  he  increases  this  nobleman’s 
faith;  by  offering  to  go,  he  brings  out  and  honors  that  centurion’s 
humility.  Nor  shall  we  fail  to  observe  by  the  difference  of  his  conduct 
in  the  two  cases  how  far  was  the  Lord  from  being  an  accepter  of  per- 
sons. He  will  not  come,  but  only  send,  to  the  son  of  this  nobleman 
(see  2 Kin.  v.  10,  11);  he  is  prompt  to  visit  in  his  own  person  the 
servant  of  that  centurion.* * * § 

It  would  seem  that  now  his  confidence  in  Christ’s  word  was  so  great, 
that  he  proceeded  leisurely  homewards,  since  it  was  not  till  the  next 
day  that  he  reached  his  house,  though  the  distance  between  the  two 
cities  was  not  so  great  that  the  journey  need  have  occupied  many  hours. 
Maldonatus  quotes  Isai.  xxviii.  16,  “ He  that  believeth  shall  not  make 
haste.”  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  his  inquiry  of  the  servants  who  met 
him  on  his  return  with  news  of  his  child’s  recovery,  was  when  the  child 
“ began  to  amend”  \ to  be  a little  better.  For  at  the  height  of  his  faith, 
the  father  had  only  looked  for  a slow  and  gradual  amendment,  and 
therefore  he  used  such  an  expression  as  this : but  his  servants  answer, 
that  at  such  an  hour,J;  the  very  hour  when  Jesus  spake  the  word,  the 
fever  not  merely  began  to  subside,  there  was  not  merely  a turning  point 
in  the  disease,  but  it  “lefthim”§  it  suddenly  forsook  him.||  “So  the 
father  knew  that  it  was  at  the  same  hour  in  the  which  Jesus  said  unto  him , 
Thy  son  livethi  and  himself  believed — this  he  did  for  all  the  benefits 
which  the  Lord  had  bestowed  on  him,  he  accepted  another  and  the 
crowning  benefit,  even  the  cup  of  salvation ; and  not  he  alone,  but,  as 
so  often  happened,  and  this  for  the  bringing  us  into  the  perception  of 
the  manner  in  which  each  smaller  community,  as  well  as  the  great  com- 
munity of  mankind, — a nation,  or  as  in  this  case  a family,  is  united  and 
bound  together  under  its  federal  head,  his  conversion  drew  after  it  that 

* Thus  the  Opus.  Imperf  in  Matt.,  Horn.  22 : Ilium  ergo  contemsit,  quem  aigni- 
tas  sublevabat  regalis ; istum  autem  honoravit,  quem  conditio  humiliabat  servilis. 

f K ojuiporepov  Icr^e  = meliuscul^  se  habuit.  Kopipog  from  Kopsu, — so  in  Latin, 
comptus,  for  adorned  in  any  way.  Thus  in  Arrian,  ( JDiss . Epict.,  3,  10,)  Kopipuc 
exeic,  (belle  habes,  Cicero,)  are  the  words  of  the  physician  to  his  patient  that  is 
getting  better 

f;  A beautiful  remark  of  Bengal’s : Quo  curatius  divina  opera  et  beneficia  consi- 
derantur,  eo  plus  nutrimenti  tides  acquirit. 

§ Ammonius  (in  Catend ) : Ov  yaq  iml&g,  ovdi-  etvxev,  a^rfllayri  rrjg  dadevetac 
to  TratScov  dll’  adpoov  dg  Qatveodai  prj  <pvaeo)g  anolovdiav  elvai  to  davpa,  alia  rrjg 
tvepyeta?  rov  Xptcrov. 

| So  it  was  plainly  in  the  case  of  Simon’s  wife’s  mother ; for  at  Christ’s  word 
“ immediately  she  arose  and  ministered  unto  them,”  (Luke  iv.  39,)  and  there  exactly 
the  same  phrase  (aQvicev  avrijv ) is  used. 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  NOBLEMAN’S  SON. 


105 


of  all  who  belonged  to  him  : “ himself  believed , and  his  whole  house f 
(Cf.  Acts  xvi.  15,  34;  xviii.  8.)* 

Yet,  might  it  not  be  asked,  Did  he  not  believe  before  % was  not  the 
healing  itself  a reward  of  his  faith?  Yes,  he  believed  that  particular 
word  of  the  Lord’s  ; but  this  is  the  adherence  of  faith,  the  entering  into 
the  number  of  Christ’s  disciples,  the  giving  of  himself  to  him  as  to  the 
promised  Messiah.  Or,  supposing  he  already  truly  believed,  there  may 
be  indicated  here  a heightening  and  augmenting  of  his  faith.  For  a 
true  faith  is  yet  most  capable  of  this  increase;  “Lord,  increase  our 
faith ;”  (Luke  xvii.  5 ;)  and  so  in  him  who  said,  “ Lord,  I believe,  help 
thou  mine  unbelief,”  (Mark  ix.  24,)  the  true  faith  was  born,  though  as 
yet  its  actings  were  weak  and  feeble.  So,  too,  we  read  after  the  last 
miracle  of  the  water  made  wine,  that  “his  disciples  believed  on  him,” 
(John  ii.  11,)  who  yet,  being  already  his  disciples,  must  have  believed 
on  him  before,  f Thus  in  the  Old  Testament  they  who  suffered  them- 
selves to  be  guided  by  Moses  must  have  already  believed  that  he  was 
the  instrument  of  God  for  their  deliverance,  yet  not  the  less  is  it  said 
after  the  great  overthrow  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host,  that  the  people  “ be- 
lieved the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses.”  (Exod.  xiv,  31.)  We  have 
another  analogous  example,  1 Kin.  xvii.  24,  where  after  the  mighty 
work  which  Elijah  did,  raising  the  widow’s  son,  she  addresses  him  thus : 
“ Now  by  this  I know  thou  art  a man  of  God,  and  that  the  word  of  the 
Lord  in  thy  mouth  is  truth,”  while  yet  she  had  recognized  him  as  such 
before,  (ver.  18 ;)  now,  however,  her  faith  received  a new  confirmation ; 
(cf.  John  xi.  15 ; xiii.  19 ;)  and  so  we  may  accept  it  here. 

* The  Jews  have  their  miracle,  evidently  founded  upon,  and  in  rivalry  of,  this 
Yitringa  {Be  Synag .,  p.  147)  quotes  it:  Quando  segrotavit  Filius  R.  Gamalielis,  duos 
misit  studiosos  sapientiae  ad  R.  Chanina,  Dusae  filium,  ut  per  preces  pro  eo  gratiam 
divinam  implorarent.  Postquam  eos  vidit,  ascendit  in  ccenaculum  suum,  Deumque 
pro  eo  oravit.  Ubi  vero  descendit,  dixit,  Abite,  quia  febris  ilium  jam  dereliquit.  . . 
Uli  verb  considentes,  signatb  annotarunt  illam  horam,  et  quando  reversi  sunt  ad  R. 
Gamalielem,  dixit  ipsis,  Per  cultum ! Nec  excessu  nec  defectu  temporis  peccastis, 
sed  sic  prorsus  factum : ea  enim  ipsa  hora  dereliquit  ipsum  febris,  et  petiit  a nobis 
aquam  potandam.  Cf.  Lampe,  Com.  in  Joh.,  v.  1,  p.  813 

f Beda:  Unde  datur  intelligi  et  in  fide  gradus  esse,  sicut  et  in  aliis  virtutibus, 
quibus  est  initium,  incrementum,  et  perfectio.  Hujus  ergo  fides  initium  habuit,  cum 
filii  salutem  petiit:  incrementum, cum  credidit  sermoni  Domini  dicentis,  Filius  tuns 
vivit ; deinde  perfectionem  obtinuit,  nuntiantibus  servis. 

14 


III. 

THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 

Luke  v.  1 — 11. 


There  have  been  some  in  all  times  who  have  deemed  themselves 
bound  to  distinguish  this  narrative  from  those  in  St.  Matthew  (iv.  18), 
and  St.  Mark  (i.  16 — 20).  Augustine,  for  example,  finds  the  differences 
so  considerable,  that  he  can  only  suppose  the  circumstance  narrated  by 
St.  Luke  to  have  first  happened,  our  Lord  then  predicting  to  Peter  that 
hereafter  he  should  catch  men ; but  not  at  that  time  summoning  him  to 
enter  on  the  work ; that  without  any  sinful  drawing  back,  he  and  his 
fellows  returned  after  a while  to  their  usual  employments ; — they  only 
on  a somewhat  later  occasion,  that  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark,  hearing  the  word  of  command,  “Follow  me,”  which  then  they 
obeyed,  and  attached  themselves  for  ever  to  their  heavenly  Lord.* 

Now  that  there  are  some  difficulties,  yet  such  as  hardly  deserve  that 
name,  in  the  harmonizing  of  the  two  accounts,  every  one  will  readily 
admit;  but  the  flying  immediately  to  the  resource  of  supposing  an  event 
happened,  with  slight  variations,  twice  or  even  three  times  over,  when- 
ever there  is  any  difficulty  in  bringing  the  parallel  accounts  perfectly  to 
agree,  seems  a very  questionable  expedient,  at  least  to  him  who  will  deal 
honestly  in  the  matter,  and  will  ask  himself  whether  he  would  be  satis- 

* De  Cons.  Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  17:  Unde  datur  locus  intelligere  eos  ex  captura  pis- 
cium  ex  more  remeasse,  ut  postea  fieret  quod  Matthaeus  et  Marcus  narrant.  . . Tunc 
enim  non  subductis  ad  terram  navibus  tanquam  cura  redeundi,  sed  ita  eum  secuti 
sunt,  tanquam  vocantem  ac  jubentem  ut  eum  sequerentur.  Mr.  Greswell  in  tlie 
same  way,  (see  his  Dissert.,  v.  2,  Diss.  9,)  earnestly  pleads  for  the  keeping  asunder 
the  two  narrations.  Yet  any  one  who  wishes  to  see  how  capable  they  are,  by  the 
expenditure  of  a little  pains,  of  being  exactly  reconciled,  has  only  to  refer  to  Span- 
heim’s  Dub.  Evang.,  v.  3,  p.  33*7.  Lightfoot,  in  his  Harmony , sees  but  the  records  of 
one  and  the  same  event,  and  Grotius  and  Hammond. 


THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  107 


fied  with  such  an  explanation  in  any  other  history.  It  is  for  him  a far 
greater  difficulty  made  than  avoided.  For  the  other  is  nothing  so  great, 
indeed  in  most  cases,  as  here,  is  none  at  all.  Any  one  who  knows  the 
various  aspects,  yet  all  true,  in  which  the  same  event  will  present  itself 
from  different  points  of  view  to  different  witnesses,  who  keeps  in  mind 
how  very  few  points  in  any  complex  fact  or  event  any  narration  what- 
ever can  seize,  least  of  all  a written  one,  which  in  its  very  nature  is 
limited,  will  little  wonder  when  two  or  three  narrators  have  in  part 
seized  diverse  as  the  culminating  points  of  a narrative,  have  brought  out 
different  moments  of  an  event : he  will  rather  be  grateful  to  that  provi- 
dence of  God  which  thus  often  sets  us  not  merely  in  the  place  of  one 
bystander,  but  of  more ; allows  us  to  see  the  acts  of  Christ,  each  part  of 
which  is  significant,  from  various  points  of  view ; to  hear  of  his  discourses, 
not  merely  what  one  heard  and  carried  away,  but  also  that  which  sunk 
especially  deep  into  the  heart  and  memory  of  another. 

A work  exclusively  devoted  to  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  has  only 
immediately  to  do  with  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke,  for  in  that  only  the 
miracle  appears.  That  which  followed  upon  the  miracle,  the  effectual 
calling  of  four  apostles,  appears  in  the  parallel  narratives  as  well — he 
thus  by  his  narrative  excellently  completing  theirs,  and  explaining  to  us 
why  the  Lord,  when  he  bade  these  future  chiefs  of  his  kingdom  to  follow 
him,  should  have  clothed  the  accompanying  promise  in  that  especial 
shape,  u I will  make  you  fishers  of  men words  which  would  anyhow 
have  had  their  propriety  as  addressed  to  fishers  whom  he  found  casting 
their  nets,  and  unconsciously  prophesying  of  their  future  work,*  yet 
winning  a pecular  fitness  after  he  has  just  shown  them  what  successful 
fishers  of  the  mute  creatures  of  the  sea,  he  could  make  them,  if  only  they 
would  be  obedient  to  his  word : whereupon  linking,  as  was  so  often  his 
custom,  the  higher  to  the  lower,  and  setting  forth  that  higher  in  the  forms 
of  the  lower,  he  bade  them  exchange  their  present  for  a loftier  calling ; 
he  still  contemplating  that  under  the  same  aspect,  as  a fishing,  though 
now  of  men,  which  at  his  bidding,  and  under  his  direction,  they  should 
no  less  successfully  accomplish. 

But  when  we  compare  John  i.  40 — 42,  would  it  not  appear  as 
though  of  these  four,  Andrew  and  Peter  at  least,  and  perhaps  John 
himself,  (ver.  35,)  had  been  already  called'?  No  doubt  they  had  been 
then,  on  the  banks  of  Jordan,  brought  into  a transient  fellowship  with 
their  future  Lord ; but,  as  would  appear,  after  that  meeting  with  him 

* Auct.  Oper.  Imperf  in  Matth Horn.  6 : Futuree  dignitatis  gratiam  artificii  sui 
«pere  prophetantes.  Augustine  ( Serm . Inedd.  Serm.  58) : Petrus  piscator  non  posuit 
retia,  sed  mutavit. 


108  THE  EIEST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


mentioned  by  St.  John,  had  returned  to  their  ordinary  occupations,  and 
only  at  this  later  period  attached  themselves  finally  and  fully  to  him, 
following  him  whithersoever  he  went  ;*  this  miracle  most  likely  being, 
as  indeed  seems  intimated,  (ver.  8,)  that  which  stirred  the  very  depths 
of  their  hearts,  which  gave  them  such  new  insights  into  the  glory  of 
Christ’s  person,  as  prepared  them  to  yield  themselves  without  reserve 
unto  him.  Consistently  with  this  view,  the  whole  transaction  bears  the 
stamp  of  being  between  those  who  have  not  met  now  for  the  first  time. 
So  far  from  their  betraying  no  previous  familiarity,  as  some  have  said, 
Peter  calls  Jesus  “Master”  and  his  saying  “ Nevertheless  at  thy  word 
I will  let  down  the  net”  implies  a previous  acquaintance  of  the  Lord, 
from  which  he  had  already  received  impressions  of  his  power  and  of 
the  weight  of  his  words.  Moreover,  that  there  should  thus  have  been 
the  two  callings  seems  quite  in  the  manner  of  a divine  teacher ; who 
would  hasten  nothing,  who  was  content  to  leave  spiritual  processes  to 
advance  as  do  the  natural ; who  could  bide  his  time,  and  did  not  expect 
the  full  com  in  the  ear  the  day  after  he  had  sown  the  seed  in  the 
ground.  On  that  former  occasion  the  Lord  cast  his  word  in  the  hearts 
of  Andrew  and  Peter,  and  then  left  it  to  take  root  downward  and  spring 
upward : and  not  in  vain,  for  he  now  returned  and  found  it  ready  to 
bear  the  ripe  fruits  of  faith.  Yet  it  is  not  that  we  need  therefore  pre- 
sume so  gradual  a process  in  all.  But  as  some  statues  are  cast  at  once, 
others  only  little  by  little  hewn  and  polished,  according  as  the  material, 
metal  or  stone,  suits  the  one  or  the  other  process,  so  are  there,  to  use 
an  expression  of  Donne’s,  “ fusile  apostles”  like  St.  Paul,  whom  one 
and  the  same  word  from  heaven,  as  a lightning  flash,  at  once  melts  and 
moulds ; and  others  by  more  gradual  degrees  shaped  and  polished  into 
the  perfect  image  of  what  the  Lord,  the  great  master-sculptor,  would 
have  them  to  be. 

But  to  enter  something  more  into  the  miracle  itself, — our  Lord,  who 
had  found  his  future  apostles  engaged  in  washing  their  nets,f  had  been 
enabled,  through  Peter’s  ready  compliance  with  his  request,  to  teach 
the  people,  unhindered  by  the  pressure  of  their  multitudes.  And 

* It  is  often  said  that  the  other  was  Yocatio  ad  notitiam  et  familiaritatem,  or,  ad 
fidem;  this,  ad  apostolatum.  See  the  remarks  of  Scultetus,  Grit.  Sac.,  v.  6,  p.  1956. 

| It  has  been  ingeniously  and  usefully  remarked  by  a mystic  writer  of  the  middle 
ages,  that  this  their  washing  and  repairing  (Matt.  iv.  21)  of  their  nets,  after  they  had 
used  them,  ought  ever  to  be  imitated  by  all  “ fishers  of  men,”  after  they  have  cast 
in  their  nets  for  a draught ; meaning  by  this  that  they  should  seek  carefully  to  pu- 
rify and  cleanse  themselves  from  aught  which  in  that  very  act  they  may  hav^gath- 
ered  of  sin,  impurities  of  vanity,  of  self-elation,  or  of  any  other  kind ; and  that  this 
they  must  do,  if  they  would  use  their  nets  effectually  for  a future  draught. 


THE  EIEST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  109 


having  now  left  speaking,  he  bade  him  to  put  out  his  boat  a little 
further  into  the  deeper,  and  therefore  the  likelier,  waters,  and  to  let 
down  his  nets* * * §  for  a draught,  designing  himself,  the  meanwhile,  to  take 
the  fisherman  in  his  net.  For  he  whose  purpose  it  was  by  the  weak 
things  of  the  world  to  confound  the  strong, f who  meant  to  draw  em- 
perors to  himself  by  fishermen,  and  not  fishermen  by  emperors,  lest 
his  Church  should  even  seem  to  stand  in  the  wisdom  and  power  of 
men,  rather  than  in  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God — he  saw  in  these 
unlearned  fishermen  of  the  Galilaean  lake  the  fittest  instruments  for  his 
work.];  To  this  exhortation  of  his  future  Lord,  Simon  Peter  replied, 
that  during  all  the  night,  in  other  words,  during  all  the  period  oppor- 
tunest  for  the  capture  of  fish,§  they  had  been  laboring,  and  their  labor 
had  been  utterly  without  success ; but,  with  the  beginnings  of  no  weak 
faith  already  working  in  him,  adds,  “ Nevertheless , at  thy  word  I will 
let  down  the  net”  For  these  may  not  be  interpreted  as  the  words  of 
one  half  despairing  of  the  issue:  as  though  he  for  himself  expected 
nothing,  but  to  satisfy  the  Master,  and  to  prove  to  him  the  fruitlessness 
of  further  efforts,  would  comply  with  his  desire.  ||  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  spoken  more  in  the  spirit  of  the  Psalmist,  when  he  exclaimed, 

* Here  it  is  more  generally  SUrvov,  probably  from  ducelv,  to  throw ; but  at  Matt, 
iv.  18;  Mark  i.  16,  it  is  specialized  as  the  dfi<pL(37i7]orpov  (==  djjtyifiohrj)  the  casting 
net,  as  its  derivation  from  ay<$>i(3u?iha  plainly  shows ; in  Latin,  funda  or  jaculum.  It 
would  naturally  be  circular,  and  were  there  any  doubt  about  its  shape,  the  account 
in  Herodotus  (1.  2,  c.  95)  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Egyptian  fishermen  protected 
themselves  at  night  from  the  mosquitoes,  namely,  by  suspending  their  net  (dfi^i- 
pirtcrpov)  in  the  form  of  a tent  over  the  place  where  they  slept,  would  be  decisive. 
(See  the  Diet  of  Gr.  and  Bom.  Antt.,  s.  v.  Rete,  p.  822.) 

f With  the  history  of  this  calling,  more  especially  as  it  appears  in  the  Gospels 
of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  the  call  of  Amos,  as  he  himself  records  it,  will  supply 
an  interesting  parallel : “ I was  no  prophet,  neither  was  I a prophet’s  son,  but  I was 
an  herdman  and  a gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit,  and  the  Lord  took  me  as  I followed 
the  flock,  and  the  Lord*  said  unto  me,  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel.”  (Amos 
vii.  14,  15.  Cf.  1 Kin.  xix.  19.) 

X See  Augustine,  Serm.  381. 

§ See  Lampe  (Comm,  in  Joh.,  v.  3,  p.  *7  27)  for  passages  in  proof  of  this,  which 
indeed  is  familiar  to  us  all.  This  passage  from  Pliny  (H.  N.,  1.  9,  c.  23)  may  be 
added  to  his  quotations  •*  Yagantur  gregatim  fere!  cujusque  generis  squamosi.  Ca- 
piuntur  ante  solis  ortum : turn  maxima  piscium  fallitur  visus.  Noctibus,  quies : et 
illustribus  aequ6,  quam  die,  cernunt  Aiunt  et  si  teratur  gurges,  interesse  capturae : 
itaque  plures  secundo  tractu  capi,  quam  primo. 

| Maldonatus:  Non  desperatione  felicioris  jactus  hoc  dicit  Petrus,  aut  quod 
Christo  vel  non  credat,  vel  obedire  nolit:  sed  potius  ut  majorem  in  Christo  fidem 
declaret;  quod  cum  tota  nocte  laborantes  nihil  prehendisset,  tamen  ejus  confidens 
verbis,  iterum  retia  laxaret. 


110  THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


11  Except  the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that  build  it : 
except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watchman  waketh  but  in  vain.” 
(Ps.  cxxvii.  1.)  It  is  as  though  he  would  say,  “ We  have  done  nothing 
during  all  the  night,  and  had  quite  lost  hope  of  doing  any  thing ; yet 
at  thy  word  and  bidding  we  will  readily  renew  our  efforts,  which  we  are 
sure  will  be  no  longer  in  vain.”  And  hiis  act  of  faith  was  abundantly 
rewarded  ; “ They  inclosed  a great  multitude  of  fishes”  so  many  indeed, 
that  “ their  net  brake.” 

It  was  not  merely  that  Christ,  by  his  omniscience,  knew  that  now 
there  were  fishes  in  that  spot ; we  may  not  thus  extenuate  the  miracle  ; 
but  rather  we  are  to  contemplate  him  as  the  Lord  of  nature,  who  by 
the  secret,  yet  mighty  magic  of  his  will,  was  able  to  wield  and  guide 
even  the  unconscious  creatures  to  his  aims.  Yet  since  the  power  that 
drew  the  fish  to  that  spot  is  the  same  that  at  all  times  guides  their 
periodic  migrations,  which,  wondrous  as  it  is,  we  yet  cannot  call  miracu- 
lous, there  is  plainly  something  that  differences  this  miracle  and  the  other 
of  like  kind,  (John  xxi.  6,)  with  that  no  less  of  the  stater  in  the  fish’s 
mouth,  (Matt.  xvii.  27,)  from  Christ’s  other  miracles, — in  that  these 
three  are  not  comings  in  of  a new  and  hitherto  unwonted  power  into 
the  region  of  nature ; but  they  are  coincidences,  divinely  brought  about , 
between  words  of  Christ  and  facts  in  that  world  of  nature.  An  im- 
mense haul  of  fishes,  or  a piece  of  money  in  the  mouth  of  one,  are 
themselves  no  miracles  but  the  miracle  lies  in  the  falling  in  of  these 
with  a word  of  Christ’s,  which  has  beforehand  pledged  itself  that  it 
shall  be  so.  The  natural  is  lifted  up  into  the  miraculous  by  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  timed,  by  the  ends  which  it  is  made  to  serve.f  Christ 
here  appears  as  the  ideal  man,  the  second  Adam  of  the  8th  Psalm, 
“ Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands ; 

thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 

the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  whatsoever  passeth  through  the  paths  of  the 
sea.”  (ver.  6,  8.) 

When  by  the  assistance  of  their  partners  in  the  other  ship,  whom 
they  beckoned  to  their  assistance,  the  fishes  were  at  length  hauled  in,  J 

* Thus  Yarrell  (Hist,  of  British  Fishes,  v.  1.  p.  125) : At  Brighton  in  June,  1808, 
the  shoal  of  mackerel  was  so  great,  that  one  of  the  boats  had  the  meshes  of  her  net 
so  completely  occupied  by  them  that  it  was  impossible  to  drag  them  in.  The  fish 
and  nets  therefore  in  the  end  sunk  together. 

f See  page  19. 

$ On  the  nets  breaking  now,  and  not  breaking,  as  it  is  expressly  said  they  did 
not  on  occasion  of  the  second  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  (John  xxi.  11,)  and  the 
mystical  meaning  which  has  been  found  in  this,  I would  refer  the  reader  to  what 
there  will  be  said. 


THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  Ill 


they  were  so  many  as  to  threaten  to  sink*  the  ship.  And  now  Peter, 
while  taking  others,  is  himself  taken ; while  drawing  the  multitudes  of 
fishes  into  his  net,  he  has  himself  fallen  into  the  net  of  Christ ; one  of 
the  first  to  discover  that  to  be  taken  in  that  net  is  to  be  taken  for  life.f 
“ Admire,”  exclaims  Chrysostom,  “ the  dispensation  of  the  Lord,  how 
he  draws  each  by  the  art  which  is  most  familiar  and  natural  to  him — as 
the  Magi ans  by  a star,  so  the  fisherman  by  fish”]; — a thought  which 
Donne  in  a sermon  on  this  text  enlarges  thus : “ The  Holy  Ghost  speaks 
in  such  forms  and  such  phrases  as  may  most  work  upon  them  to  whom 
he  speaks.  Of  David,  that  was  a shepherd  before,  God  says,  he  took 
him  to  feed  his  people.  To  those  Magi  of  the  East,  who  were  given  to 
the  study  of  the  stars,  God  gave  a star  to  be  their  guide  to  Christ  at 
Bethlehem.  To  those  who  followed  him  to  Capernaum  for  meat,  Christ 
took  occasion  by  that  to  preach  to  them  of  the  spiritual  food  of  their 
souls.  To  the  Samaritan  woman  whom  he  found  at  the  well,  he 
preached  of  the  water  of  life.  To  these  men  in  our  text,  accustomed 
to  a joy  and  gladness  when  they  took  great  store  of  fish,  he  presents  his 
comforts  agreeably  to  their  taste,  they  should  be  fishers  still.  Christ 
makes  heaven  all  things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  gain  all.”  And 
Peter,  astonished  at  the  strange  success  of  his  cast,  the  same  that  he  ever 
afterwards  appears,  as  impetuous,  yielding  as  freely  to  the  impulse  of 
the  moment,  with  the  beginnings  of  the  same  quick  spiritual  eye  which 
made  him  the  first  to  see  the  highest  glory  of  the  Saviour,  even  his  eter- 
nal Sonship,  and  to  confess  it,  could  no  longer,  in  the  deep  feeling  of  his 
own  unholiness,  endure  the  nearness  of  an  altogether  Holy  One,  but 
'‘''fell  down  at  Jesus ’ knees , crying , Depart  from  me , for  I am  a sinful 
man , 0 Lord”  At  moments  like  these  all  that  is  merely  conventional 
is  swept  away,  and  the  deep  heart  of  man  speaks  out,  and  the  deepest 
things  that  are  in  that  heart  come  forth  to  the  light.  And  this  is  the 
deepest  thing  that  is  in  man’s  heart  under  the  law ; this  sense  of  the 
gulf  of  separation  that  is  between  him  and  God.  “ Let  not  God  speak 
with  us  lest  we  die ;”  this  was  the  voice  of  the  people  to  Moses,  as 
“they  removed  and  stood  afar  off.”  (Exod.  xx.  18,  19.)  “We  shall 
surely  die,  because  we  have  seen  God.”  (Judg.  xiii.  22 ; cf.  vi.  22, 
23 ; Dan.  x.  17 ; Isai.  vi.  5.)  Below  this  is  the  utterly  profane  state, 
in  which  there  is  no  contrast,  no  contradiction  felt  between  the  holy  and 

* BvOifra Oat.  The  word  occurs  once  besides,  but  then  in  a tropical  sense.  (1 
Tim.  vi.  9.) 

f The  author  of  a striking  sermon,  numbered  205,  in  the  Benedictine  Appendix 
to  St.  Augustine  : Dum  insidiatur  Petrus  gregibus  sequoris,  ipse  in  retia  incidit  Sal- 
vatoris.  Fit  de  prsedone  prseda,  de  piscatore  piscatio,  de  pirata  captivitas. 

\ Sol  ere  Christum  capere  sua  quemque  arte  rnagos  stella,  piscatores  piscibus. 


112  THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


the  unholy,  between  God  and  man.  Above  it  is  the  state,  which  is  that 
of  grace,  in  which  all  the  contradiction  is  felt,  the  deep  gulf  perceived 
which  divides  between  sinful  man  and  a holy  God ; yet  is  it  felt  at  the 
same  time  that  this  gulf  is  bridged  over,  that  it  is  possible  for  the  two 
to  meet,  that  in  One  who  is  sharer  with  both  they  have  already  been 
brought  together.  Into  this  higher  state  Christ  now  invites  Peter,  not 
taking  him  at  his  word  and  leaving  him  as  he  desired,  but  bidding  him 
to  lay  aside  his  fears,  and  to  accept  a function  and  a work  from  him.  For 
though  his  was  indeed  the  presence  of  God,  yet  of  him  with  his  glory 
veiled  and  hidden,  so  that  even  sinful  men  might  endure  to  be  near  it, 
and  dwelling  in  that  nearness,  might  step  by  step  be  prepared  for  the 
ultimate  seeing  of  God  as  he  is  ; which,  though  it  must  be  death  to  the 
mere  sinner,  yet  would  be  the  highest  blessedness  to  him  who  had  been 
trained  and  fitted  for  it  by  beholding  for  a while  his  mitigated  splendor 
in  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  even  such  a beholding  as  would 
more  and  more  have  wrought  holiness  and  purity  in  him. 

And  hereupon  follow  the  reassuring  words,  “ Fear  not , from  hence- 
forth thou  shalt  catch  menf  from  the  lips  of  Jesus;  words  which  were 
properly  the  inauguration  of  Peter  and  his  fellows  to  the  great  work 
whereunto  they  were  about  to  be  sent.  For  we  see  continually  for 
them  that  are  called  to  some  signal  work  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  an 
inauguration,  not  formal,  not  always  the  same  in  its  outward  accidents ; 
but  always  the  same  in  this,  that  in  it  the  earthly  grows  pale  before  the 
heavenly ; the  man  recognizes  his  nothingness,  his  vileness,  and  recog- 
nizes it  in  a way  which  he  never  had  done  before,  that  so  the  work  in 
him  may  be  altogether  God’s  and  not  man’s,  may  not  henceforward  be 
spoiled  by  self  intermingling  with  it.  The  true  parallels  to  this  passage, 
contemplated  as  such  an  inauguration  as  this,  are  Exod.  iv.  10 — 17 ; 
Isai.  vi.  ; Jer.  i.  4 — 10;  Judg.  vi.  11 — 23;  Acts  ix.  3—9;  and  more 
remotely  Dan.  x.,  which,  with  many  points  of  resemblance,  is  yet  un- 
like in  this,  that  it  is  not  the  first  sending  forth  of  one  to  his  work  in  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

“ Henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  menf  or,  in  the  words  of  the  other 
Evangelists,  “I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men.”  Christ  clothes  the 
promise  in  forms  of  that  art  which  was  familiar  to  Peter ; the  fisherman 
is  to  catch  men,  as  David,  the  shepherd,  taken  from  among  the  sheep- 
folds,  was  to  feed  them.  (Ps.  lxxviii.  71,  72.)  There  is  in  these  words  a 
double  magnifying  of  Peter’s  future  function  as  compared  with  his  past; 
that  it  is  men  and  not  poor  fishes  henceforth  which  he  shall  take,  and  that 
he  shall  take  them  for  life , and  not  as  he  had  taken  his  meaner  prey,  only 
for  death.  For  no  less  than  this  is  involved  in  the  original  word  by  which 
the  catching  is  expressed,  a word  which  thus  supplies  with  a singular  hap- 


THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  113 


piness  an  answer  to  the  malignant  sneer  of  Julian,*  who  observed  that 
the  Galilaean  did  indeed  most  aptly  term  his  apostles  “ fishers for  as 
the  fisherman  draws  out  the  fish  from  waters  where  they  were  free  and 
happy,  to  an  element  in  which  they  cannot  breathe,  but  must  presently 
perish,  so  did  these.f  But  the  expression  usedj  singularly  excludes  such 
a turn ; — “ Thou  shalt  take  men,  and  take  them  for  life , not  for  death ; 
those  that  were  wandering  at  random  through  the  salt-sea.  waves  of  the 

* His  words,  quoted  by  Theophanes,  (Horn.  5,)  are  the  following : Zur)  pev  role 
Ivvdpoig  to  vdup,  duvarog  de  6 dr)g'  el  dr)  rovro  kanv  dTirjdeg,  ol  padrjral  dpa  rov  ’I rjcrov 
rovg  dvdpunovg  dypevovreg  did  rov  Krjpvyparog , rrj  dnuleia  Kal  rip  davunp,  ug  rovg 
IxOvag , napadidoaoi.  See  Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.  dhevg,  for  the  reply  of  Theophanes. — 
At  Ezek.  xxix.  4,  5,  the  dragging  forth  of  the  dragon  of  Egypt  from  the  waters  is 
the  expression  of  a great  calamity,  the  prophecy  of  a certain  doom,  but  here  the 
drawing  forth  is  exactly  the  contrary. — It  was  probably,  as  Origen  supposes,  (Con. 
Cels.,  1.  1,  c.  62,)  from  a confused  remembrance  of  this  passage  that  Celsus  contemp- 
tuously styled  the  apostles  “ publicans  and  sailors ” (vavrag).  But  this  inexactness 
is  only  of  a piece  with  his  ignorance  even  of  the  number  of  the  apostles  ; which  was 
singular  enough  in  one  who  undertook  a formal  refutation  of  Christianity. 

f There  is  indeed  an  aspect  in  which  the  death  of  the  fish,  which  follows  on  its  being 
drawn  out  of  the  waters,  has  its  analogy  in  the  higher  spiritual  world.  The  man, 
drawn  forth  by  these  Gospel  nets  from  the  worldly  sinful  element  in  which  before  he 
lived  and  moved,  does  die  to  sin,  die  to  the  world ; but  only  that  out  of  this  death  he 
may  rise  to  a higher  life  in  Christ.  This  is  brought  out  with  much  beauty  by  Origen 
(Horn.  16  in  Jerem.):  ’E keZvol  ol  IxOveg  ol  dloyoi  dv eld ovr eg  ev  ralg  aayijvaig  dnod- 
vrjcKovai  ddvarov,  oi>xi  diadexopevr/g  ^orjg  rov  davarov ’ 6 de  ovllTjtydeig  vnd  rfiv  dheuv 
’lr/aov,  Kal  dvelddv  and  rrjg  dalaaarjg,  Kal  avrog  pev  anodvrjoKEi,  anodvijcKei  de  rip 
Koapip,  dnodvrjoKei  rrj  dpaprta,  Kal  perd  to  dnodaveiv  rep  Koapcp  Kal  rrj  dpapria,  £bo- 
7 roielrai  in b rov  Aoyov  rov  Qeov,  Kal  avalapftavei  dXkriv  (janjv. 

\ Zoyp&v,  from  &og,  and  aypevo,  to  take  alive : and  so  used  repeatedly  in  the 
Septuagint,  (Num.  xxxi.  15  ; Deut.  xx.  16;  Josh.  ii.  13 ;)  and  in  like  manner  tjuypela, 
the  prey  which  is  saved  alive.  (Num.  xxi.  35  ; Deut.  ii.  24.)  Cf.  Homer,  Iliad,  £ ver. 
46,  where  one  pleading  for  his  life,  exclaims, 

Z dypei,  ’Arpeog  vie , av  d’  u^ia  de^ai  dnoiva. 

The  same  nice  accuracy  in  the  use  of  the  word  is  observable  2 Tim.  ii.  26,  which 
when  rightly  understood  is  a parallel  to  this  in  more  than  the  single  word.  The  avrov 
apd  the  ekelvov  there  can  scarcely  refer  to  the  same  person,  and  probably  neither  of  them 
to  the  Devil  in  the  clause  before,  but  avrov  to  the  dovlog  K vpiov,  ver.  24,  and  ekeivov  to 
0eof,  ver.  25  ; and  the  sense  will  then  be,  that  the  servant  of  the  Lord  is  to  teach  with 
this  patience,  to  the  end  that  they  who  are  caught  in  the  snare  of  the  Devil,  may  be  by 
him  (vt?  avrov ) taken  alive  (Ifaypypevoi)  out  of  his  power,  and  preserved  to  the  will  of 
God  (elg  to  Ikeivov  deXrjpa ),  “ may  prove  fit  instruments  for  his  service,”  in  Hammond’s 
words,  who  in  part  agrees  with  this  interpretation,  as  does  Theophylact.  See  Suicer’s 
Thes.,  s.  v.  £« ypeu. — It  appears  as  if  the  old  Italic  version  took  & ypeu  in  its  other 
derivation,  (from  &V  and  ayelpu,)  for  we  find  the  passage  quoted  by  St.  Ambrose  and 
other  early  fathers,  Eris  vivificans  homines ; but  in  the  Vulgate,  Homines  eris  capiens. 

15 


114  THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


world,  among  its  deep  unquiet  waters,  full  of  whirlpools  and  fears,  the 
smaller  of  them  falling  a prey  to  the  greater,*  and  all  with  the  weary 
sense  as  of  a vast  prison,  thou  shalt  gather  into  one,  embracing  them  all 
within  the  same  folds  and  recesses  of  the  Gospel  net  ;f  which  if  they  break 
not  through,  nor  leap  over,  they  shall  at  length  be  drawn  up  to  shore,  out 
of  the  dark  gloomy  waters  into  the  bright  clear  light  of  day,  and  shall 
there  and  then  be  collected  into  vessels  for  eternal  life.”  (Matt.  xiii.  48.) 

Another  point  of  resemblance  is  the  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
fisher  of  what  fish*  he  will  gather  in,  whether  many  or  few,  or  whether 
any  at  all  will  reward  his  labors.  He  casts  in  his  net,  knowing  that  the 
success  must  be  from  above ; and  it  is  not  otherwise  with  the  preaching 
of  the  Word.  There  are  yet  other  peculiar  fitnesses  in  the  image 
drawn  from  the  occupation  of  the  fisher,  rather,  for  instance,  than  in 
one  borrowed  from  the  nearly  allied  pursuits  of  the  hunter.  The 
fisher  does  more  often  take  his  prey  alive ; he  diuws  it  to  him,  does  not 
drive  it  from  him  ;J  and  not  merely  to  himself,  but  draws  all  which  he 

* Augustine  ( Enarr . in  Ps.  lxiv.  6) : Mare  enim  in  figure  dicitur  seculum  hoc, 
falsitate  amarum,  procellis  turbulentum : ubi  homines  cupiditatibus  perversis  et  pra- 
vis  facti  sunt  velut  pisces  invicem  se  devorantes.  Ambrose : Et  bene  apostolica  in- 
strumenta  piscandi  retia  sunt;  quae  non  captos  perimunt,  sed  reservant,  et  de  pro- 
fundo  ad  lumen  extrahunt,  et  fluctuantes  de  infernis  ad  superna  perducunt. 

f Augustine  ( Serm . 59,  Serm.  Inedd .):  Nam  sicut  rete  quos  continet  vagari  non 
patitur,  ita  et  fides  errare,  quos  colligit,  non  permittit : et  sicut  ibi  captos  sinu  quo- 
dam  perducit  ad  navim,  ita  et  hie  congregatos  gremio  quodam  deducit  ad  requiem. 
Yet  this  title  of  “ fishers”  itself  also  fails  in  part,  and  does  not  set  out  the  whole  char- 
acter of  the  Christian  ministry ; indeed  only  two  moments  of  it  with  any  strength,  the 
first  and  the  last, — the  bringing  into  the  Church,  as  the  inclosing  within  the  net,  and 
the  bringing  safely  to  the  final  kingdom,  as  the  landing  of  the  net  with  its  contents 
upon  the  shore.  (Matt,  xiil . 48.)  All  which  is  between  it  leaves  unexpressed,  and 
yields  therefore  in  fitness  ana  completeness,  as  in  frequency  of  use,  to  the  image  bor- 
rowed from  the  work  of  the  shepherd ; in  testimony  of  which  it  has  given  us  no  such 
names  as  “ pastor”  and  “ flock”  to  enrich  our  Christian  language.  That  of  “ shepherd” 
expresses  exactly  all  which  the  term  “ fisher”  leaves  untouched,  the  habitual  daily 
care  for  the  members  of  Christ,  his  peculium  in  every  sense,  after  they  are  brought 
info  the  fellowship  of  his  Church.  This  title  of  “fisher”  sets  forth  the  work  more 
of  the  ingathering  of  souls,  the  missionary  activity ; that  of  shepherd  more  the  tend- 
ing and  nourishing  of  souls  that  have  thus  been  ingathered.  This,  therefore,  fitly 
comes  the  first : it  was  said  to  Peter,  “ rPhou  shalt  catch  men ,”  before  it  was  said  to 
him,  “Feed  my  sheep ;”  and  each  time  a different  commission,  or  at  least  a different 
side  of  the  commission,  is  expressed ; he  shall  be  both  evangelist  and  pastor. 

^ Spanheim  {Dub.  Evang.,  v.  3,  p.  350) : Non  venatores  Dominus  vocatos  voluit, 
sed  piscatores,  non  homines  abigentes  a se  prsedam,  sed  colligentes : and  many  other 
points  of  comparison  between  the  fisher  and  the  minister  of  Christ,  he  brings  out.  Yet 
the  image  still  remains,  even  in  the  New  Testament,  open  to  the  other  use ; thus  in  the 
€%el KopevoQ  ical  del ea&fievog  of  Jam.  i.  14,  are  doubtless  allusions  to  the  fish  drawn  from 


THE  EIKST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  115 


has  taken  to  one  another,  even  as  the  Church  brings  together  the  divided 
hearts,  the  fathers  to  the  children,  gathers  into  one  fellowship  the  scat- 
tered tribes  of  men.  Again,  the  work  of  the  fisher  is  rather  a work  of 
art  and  skill  than  of  force  and  violence  ;*  so  that  Tertullianf  finds  in 
this  miracle  a commencing  fulfilment  of  Jer.  xvi.  16,  “Behold,  I will 
send  for  many  fishers,  saith  the  Lord,  and  they  shall  fish  them though 
indeed  it  may  very  well  be  a question  whether  in  those  words  there 
lies  not  rather  a threat  than  a promise.  It  is,  however,  quite  in  the 
spirit  of  the  New  Covenant  to  take  a threatening  of  the  Old,  and  fulfil  it, 
yet  so  to  transform  it  in  the  fulfilling  that  it  shall  be  no  longer  what  it 
was,  a curse,  but  a blessing.  Thus,  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Lord, 
would  have  been  in  the  old  time  a woe,  but  it  may  now  be  the  chiefest 
blessing ; and  in  this  manner  his  application  of  the  words  may  at  any 

its  safe  hiding  places,  and  enticed  by  the  tempting  bait  (Se'Aeag)  to  its  destruction. 
Of.  Hab.  i.  14—1*7. 

* So  Ovid  ( Halieut .) : Foster  in  arte  labor  positus.  Cf.  2 Cor.  xii.  16,  vTvapxov 
Ttavovpyog,  SoXc j vpdg  eAa(3ov.  And  Augustine  {Be  Util.  Jejun.,  c.  9,)  brings  out  the 
difference  between  the  fisher  and  the  hunter : Quare  Apostoli  neminem  coegerunt, 
neminem  impulerunt?  Quia  piscator  est,  retia  mittit  in  mare,  quod  incurrerit,  trahit. 
Venator  autem  sylvas  cingit,  sentes  excutit;  terroribus  undique  multiplicatis  cogit  in 
retia.  He  hac  eat,  ne  illic  eat : inde  occurre,  inde  caede,  inde  terre ; non  exeat,  non 
effugiat.  Thus  hunting  is  most  often  an  image  used  in  malam  partem : the  oppressions 
of  the  ungodly  are  often  described  under  images  borrowed  from  thence.  (Ps.  x.  9 ; 
xxxv.  *7.)  Nimrod  is  “ a mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord,”  (Gen.  x.  9,)  where  to  think 
of  any  other  hunting  but  a tyrannous  driving  of  men  before  him  is  idle.  Augustine 
has  given  the  right  meaning  of  the  words  ( Be  Civ.  Dei,  1.  16,  c.  4):  Quid  significatur 
hoc  nomine  quod  est  Venator,  nisi  animalium  terrigenarum  deceptor,  oppressor,  extinc- 
tor  ? Luther,  in  one  of  his  Letters,  speaks  of  a hunting  party  at  which  he  was  present : 
“ Much  it  pitied  me  to  think  of  the  mystery  and  emblems  which  lieth  beneath  it.  For 
what  does  this  symbol  signify,  but  that  the  Devil,  through  his  godless  huntsmen  and 
dogs,  the  bishops  and  theologians  to  wit,  doth  privily  chase  and  snatch  the  innocent 
poor  little  beasts  ? Ah,  the  simple  and  credulous  souls  came  thereby  far  too  plain  before 
my  eyes.”  Yet  it  is  characteristic  that  the  hunting,  in  which  is  the  greatest  coming  out 
of  power,  should  of  men  be  regarufid  as  the  noblest  occupation : and  thus  we  find  it 
even  in  Plato  who  ( De  Legg.,  p.  823)  approves  of  it,  while  fishing  he  would  willingly 
forbid  as  an  dpydg  drjpa  and  epug  ov  otyodpa  lAevdepiog.  (Becker’s  Charicles,  v.  1,  p.  437.) 

f Adv.  Marc.,  L 4,  c.  9 : De  tot  generibus  operum  quid  utique  ad  piscaturam 
respexit,  ut  ab  ilia  in  Apostolos  sumeret  Simonem  et  filios  Zebedaei  ? Non  enim  sim- 
plex factum  videri  potest,  de  quo  argumentum  processurum  erat,  dicens  Petro  trepi- 
danti  de  copiosa  indagine  piscium : Ne  time,  abliinc  enim  homines  eris  capiens.  Hoc 
enim  dicto,  intellectual  illis  suggerebat  adimpletae  prophetiae ; se  eum  esse  qui  per 
Hierimiam  pronuntiarat,  Ecce  ego  mittam  piscatores  multos,  et  piscabuntur  illos. 
Denique  relictis  naviculis  sequuti  sunt  eum ; ipsum  intelligentes,  qui  cceperat  facere 
quod  edixerat.  Cf.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  Cramer’s  Catena , who  makes  the  same 
application  of  that  verse  from  Jeremiah. 


116  THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


rate  be  justified.  There  is  now  a captivity  which  is  blessed,  blessed 
because  it  is  deliverance  from  a freedom  which  is  full  of  woe, — a “ being 
made  free  from  sin  and  becoming  servants  to  God,”  that  so  we  may 
have  our  “ fruit  unto  holiness,  and  the  end  everlasting  life.”  (Rom. 
vi.  20.)  But  the  present  passage  might  be  brought  with  a more  unques- 
tionable propriety  in  relation  with  Ezek.  xlvii.  9,  10,  and  the  prophecy 
there  of  the  fishers  that  should  stand  on  Engedi,  and  the  great  multitude 
of  fish  that  should  be  in  the  healed  waters. 

And  as  the  ministers  of  Christ  are  fishers,  so  the  faithful  are  aptly 
likened  to  fish.  The  comparison,  which  was  so  great  a favorite  in  the 
early  Church,  probably  did  not  derive  its  first  impulse  from  these  words 
of  our  Lord ; but  rather  from  the  fact  that  it  was  the  waters  of  baptism 
through  which  men  were  brought  into  life,*  and  that  only  by  abiding  in 
that  element  into  which  they  were  introduced  they  continued  to  draw  a 
true  life : so  that  the  two  images  cannot  stand  at  the  same  time,  exclud- 
ing as  they  mutually  do  one  another ; for  in  one  the  blessedness  is  to 
remain  in  the  waters,  as  in  the  vivifying  element,  in  the  other  to  be 
drawn  forth  from  them  into  the  purer  and  clearer  air.  In  one  Christ  is 
the  Eish.j-  in  the  other  the  chief  Eisherman, — addressed  therefore  in 
that  grand  Orphic  hymn  attributed  to  the  Alexandrian  Clement,  in  words 
which  may  thus  be  translated, — 

Fisher  of  mortal  men, 

All  that  the  sav6d  are, 

Ever  the  holy  fish, 

From  the  fierce  oce&n 

Of  the  world’s  sea  of  sin 

By  thy  sweet  life  those  enticest  away. 

And  bringing  their  ships  to  shore,  “ they  forsook  all , and  followed 
him”  But  what  was  that  11  all”  which  “ they  forsook ” ask  some, 


* Tertullian,  (De  Bccpt.,  c.  1) : Sed  nos  pisciculi  secundum  1x0 vv  nostrum  Jesum 
Christum  in  aqua  nascimur ; nec  aliter  quam  in  aqua  permanendo  salvi  sumus.  And 
Chrysostom  on  these  words,  “ I will  make  you  fishers  of  men,”  exclaims,  “ Truly,  a 
new  method  of  fishing ! for  the  fishers  draw  out  the  fishes  from  the  waters,  and  kill 
those  that  they  have  taken.  But  we  fling  into  the  waters,  and  those  that  are  taken 
are  made  alive.” 

j-  Augustine  ( De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  18,  c.  23,)  giving  the  well-known  Greek  anagram  of 
TX0Y2,  adds : In  quo  nomine  mystice  intelligitur  Christus,  eo  quod  in  hujus  mortali- 
tatis  abysso,  velut  in  aquarum  profunditate  vivus,  hoc  est,  sine  peccato  esse  potuerit. 
In  the  chasing  away  of  the  evil  spirit  by  the  fish’s  gall,  (Tob.  viii.  2,  3,)  a type  was 
often  found  in  the  early  Church,  of  the  manner  in  which,  when  Christ  is  near,  the  works 
of  the  Devil  are  destroyed.  Thus  Prosper  of  Aquitaine : Christus. . . .piscis  in  sua 
passione  decoctus,  cujus  ex  interior ibus  remediis  quotidie  illuminamur  et  pascimur. 


THE  FIRST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES.  117 


that  they  should  afterwards  seem  to  make  so  much  of  it,  saying, 
u Behold  we  have  forsaken  all,  and  followed  thee : what  shall  we  have 
therefore  ?”  (Matt.  xix.  27.)  It  was  their  all,  and  therefore,  though 
it  might  have  been  but  a few  poor  boats  and  nets,  it  was  much.  And 
the  forsaking  consists  not  in  the  more  or  less  that  is  forsaken,  but  in  the 
spirit  in  which  it  is  left.  A man  may  be  holden  by  love  to  a miserable 
hovel  with  as  fast  bands  as  to  a sumptuous  palace ; for  it  is  the  worldly 
affection  which  holds  him,  and  not  the  world : just  as  we  gather  from 
the  warnings  scattered  through  the  ascetic  books  of  the  middle  ages  how 
they  who  had  renounced,  it  may  be,  great  possessions  in  the  world, 
would  now,  if  they  did  not  earnestly  watch  against  it,  come  to  cling  to 
their  hood,  their  breviary,  the  scanty  furniture  of  their  bare  cell,  with 
the  same  feelings  of  property  as  they  once  exercised  in  ampler  matters, 
so  witnessing  that  they  had  no  more  succeeded  in  curing  themselves  of 
worldly  affections,  than  a man  would  succeed  in  curing  himself  of  cov- 
etousness by  putting  out  the  eye  which  in  times  past  had  been  often  the 
inlet  of  desire.  These  apostles  might  have  left  little,  when  they  left 
their  possessions,  but  they  left  much,  when  they  left  their  desires.* 

A word  or  two  here  in  conclusion  may  find  place  generally  upon  the 
symbolic  acts  of  our  Lord,  whereof,  according  to  his  own  distinct  assu- 
rance, we  here  have  one.  The  desire  of  the  human  mind  to  set  forth  the 
truth  which  it  deeply  feels  in  acts  rather  than  by  words,  or  it  may  be  by 
blended  act  and  word,  has  a very  deep  root  in  our  nature,  which  always 
strives  after  the  concrete ; and  it  manifests  itself  not  merely  in  the  insti- 
tution of  fixed  symbolic  acts,  as  the  anointing  of  kings,  or  the  casting 
earth  into  a grave ; but  more  strikingly  yet,  in  acts  that  are  the  free  and 
momentary  products  of  some  creative  mind,  which  has  more  to  utter 
than  it  can  find  words  to  be  the  bearers  of,  or  would  utter  it  in  a more 
expressive  manner  than  these  permit.  This  manner  of  teaching,  how- 
ever frequent  in  Scripture,  (1  Kin.  ii.  30,  31 ; xxii.  11 ; Acts  xiii.  51,) 
yet  belongs  not  to  Scripture  only,  nor  is  it  even  peculiar  to  the  East,  al- 
though there  it  is  most  frequent,  and  most  entirely  at  home ; but  every 

* Augustine  (Enarr.  3a  in  Ps.  ciii.  17):  Multum  dimisit,  fratres  mei,  multum 
dimisit,  qui  non  solum  dimisit  quidquid  habebat,  sed  etiam  quidquid  habere  cupiebat. 
Quis  enim  pauper  non  turgescit  in  spem  sseculi  hujus?  quis  non  quotidie  cupit  au- 
gere  quod  habet?  Ista  cupiditas  praecisa  est.  Prorsus  totum  mundum  dimisit  Pe- 
trus, et  totum  mundum  Petrus  accipiebat.  And  Gregory  the  Great,  following  in 
the  same  line  ( Horn . 5 in  Evang.) : Multum  ergo  Petrus  et  Andreas  dimisit,  quando 
uterque  etiam  desideria  liabendi  dereliquit.  Multum  dimisit,  qui  cum  re  possess^ 
etiam  concupiscentis  renuntiavit.  A sequentibus  ergo  tanta  dimissa  sunt,  quanta 
a non  sequentibus  coucupisci  potuerunt.  Cf.  Clemet  s of  Alexandria,  Quis  Dives 
Salvus  f c.  20,  v.  2,  p.  946,  Potter’s  ed. 


118  THE  FIEST  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


where,  as  men  have  felt  strongly  and  deeply,  and  desired  to  make  others 
feel  so,  they  have  had  recourse  to  such  a language  as  this,  which  has 
many  advantages  for  bringing  home  its  truth.  When  Hannibal,  for  in- 
stance, as  he  was  advancing  into  Italy,  set  some  of  his  captives  to  fight,* 
placing  before  them  freedom  and  presents  and  rich  armor  for  the  victor, 
and  at  least  escape  from  present  extreme  misery  for  the  slain ; who  does 
not  feel  that  he  realized  to  his  army  the  blessings  which  not  victory  alone, 
but  even  the  other  alternative  of  death,  would  give  them,  in  affording 
release  from  the  intolerable  evils  of  their  present  state,  as  words  could 
never  have  done  ? or  that  Diogenes  expressed  his  contempt  for  humanity 
by  his  noonday  lantern  more  effectually  than  by  all  his  scornful  words 
he  could  ever  have  expressed  it?  As  the  Cynic,  so  too  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  though  in  quite  another  temper,  would  oftentimes  weave  theii 
own  persons  into  such  parabolic  acts,  would  use  themselves  as  part  of 
their  own  symbol,  and  that  because  nothing  short  of  this  would  satisfy 
the  earnestness  with  which  the  truth  of  God,  whereof  they  desired  to 
make  others  partakers,  possessed  their  own  souls.  (Ezek.  xii.  1 — 12; 
Acts  xxi.  11.)  And  thus,  too,  not  this  only,  but  many  actions  of  our 
Lord’s  were  such  an  embodied  teaching,!  the  incorporation  of  an  act, 
having  a deeper  significance  than  lay  upon  the  surface,  and  being  only 
entirely  intelligible  when  we  recognize  in  them  a significance  such  as 
this.  (Matt.  xxi.  18, 19 ; John  xxi.  19.)  Christ  being  the  Word,  his  deeds 
who  is  the  Word,  are  themselves  also  words  for  us.J 

* Polybius,  Hist.,  1.  2,  c.  62, 

f Lampe  : In  umbra  prsemonstrabatur  quam  lseto  successu  in  omni  labore,  quern 
in  nomine  Dei  suscepturi  essent,  piscaturam  prsecipu^  mysticam  inter  gentes  institu- 
entes,  gravisuri  sint.  Grotius,  who  is  much  more  forward  to  admit  mystical  meanings 
in  the  Scripture  than  in  general  he  is  given  credit  for,  whether  that  is  for  his  praise 
or  the  contrary,  finds  real  prophecy  in  many  of  the  subordinate  details  of  this  mira- 
cle : Libenter  igitur  hie  veteres  sequor,  qui  prsecedentis  historise  hoc  putant  esse  rd 
aXlriyopov/ievov,  Apostolos  non  suapte  industria  sed  Christi  imperio  ac  virtute  ex- 
pansis  Evangelii  retibus  tantam  facturos  capturam,  ut  opus  habituri  sint  subsidiaria 
multorum  tbayytkiaT&v  opera;  atque  ita  impletum  iri  non  unam  navem, Judseorum 
scilicet,  sed  et  alteram  gentium,  sed  quarum  navium  futura  sit  arcta  atque  indivulsa 
societas.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (see  Cramer’s  Catena , in  lot')  had  anticipated  this; 
and  compare  also  Theophylact,  {in  loc.,)  who  besides  the  above,  finds  one  more  signifi- 
cant circumstance;  the  night  during  which  they  had  taken  nothing  was  the  time  of 
the  law ; but  there  was  then  no  success,  nor  a kingdom  of  God  with  all  men  pressing 
into  it,  till  Christ  was  come,  and  he  had  given  the  word. 

\ Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  24):  Nam  quia  ipse  Christus  Yerbum  est,etiam 
factum  Yerbi  verbum  nobis  est.  Ep.  102,  qu.  6 : Nam  sicut  humana  consuetudo  ver- 
bis, ita  divina  potentia  etiam  factis  loquitur. 


IV. 

THE  STILLING  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


Matt.  viii.  23 — 2 7 ; Mark  iv.  35 — 41 ; Luke  viii.  22 — 25. 


The  three  Evangelists  who  relate  this  history  agree  in  placing  it  im- 
mediately before  the  healing  of  the  possessed  in  the  country  of  the  Gad- 
ai’enes.  It  was  evening,  the  evening  probably,  of  that  day  on  which  the 
Lord  had  spoken  all  those  parables  recorded  in  Matt.  xiii.  (cf.  Mark  iv. 
35),  when,  dismissing  the  multitude,  he  would  fain  pass  over  to  the  other 
s'de  of  the  lake,  and  so,  for  a little  while,  withdraw  from  the  tumult  and 
the  press.  With  this  intention,  he  was  received  by  the  disciples  K even  as 
he  wai*  in  the  ship”  But  before  the  transit  was  accomplished,  a sudden 
and  violent  squall, f such  as  these  small  inland  seas,  surrounded  with  moun- 
tain gorges,  are  notoriously  exposed  to,  descended  on' the  bosom  of  the 
lake : and  the  ship  which  bore  the  Saviour  of  the  world  appeared  to  be  in 
imminent  peril,  as,  humanly  speaking,  no  doubt  it  was ; for  these  men, 
exercised  to  the  sea  many  of  them  from  their  youth,  and  familiar  with 
all  the  changes  of  that  lake,  would  not  have  .been  terrified  by  the  mere 
shadow  of  a danger.  But  though  the  danger  was  so  real,  and  was  ever 
growing  more  urgent,  until  “ the  waves  beat  into  the  ship , so  that  now  it 
was  full”  their  Master,  weary,  it  may  be,  after  the  toils  of  the  day,  con- 
tinues sleeping  still : he  was,  with  details  which  St.  Mark  alone  has  pre-  • 
served,  “ in  the  hinder  part  of  the  ship , asleep  upon  a pillow  ;”  and  was 
not  roused  by  all  the  tumult  and  confusion  incident  on  such  a moment. 
We  behold  him  here  as  exactly  the  reverse  of  Jonah ; the  prophet  asleep 
in  the  midst  of  a like  danger  through  a dead  conscience,  the  Saviour  out 

* Qf  rjv,  probably,  sine  ullo  ad  iter  apparatu. 

f Eeurjubc,  which  is  generally  an  earth-quake ; (so  Matt.  xxiv.  7 ;)  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  Aai/lai/;,  which  is  defined  by  Hesychius,  dvifiov  avarpo^r)  /usd’  verov,  a squall. 


120 


THE  STILLING  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


of  a pure  conscience — Jonah  by  his  presence  making  the  danger,  Jesus 
yielding  the  pledge  and  the  assurance  of  deliverance  from  the  danger.* * * § 
But  the  disciples  understood  not  this.  It  was  long,  probably,  before 
they  dared  to  arouse  him ; yet  at  length  they  did  so,  and  then  with  ex- 
clamations of  haste  and  terror ; as  is  evidenced  by  the  double  “ Master, 
master ,”  of  St.  Luke.  In  St.  Mark,  they  awaken  him  with  words 
almost  of  rebuke,  as  if  he  were  unmindful  of  their  safety,  “ Master, 
rarest  thou  not  that  we  perish?”  though  no  doubt  they  meant  in  this 
“ we ” to  include  their  beloved  Lord  as  well  as  themselves.f  Then  the 
Lord  arose ; from  St.  Mark  it  would  appear,  first  blaming  their  want  of 
faith,  and  then  pacifying  the  storm;  though  the  other  Evangelists  make 
the  blame  not  to  have  gone  before,  but  to  have  followed  after,  the  allay- 
ing of  the  winds  and  waves.  Probably  it  did  both : he  spoke  first  to 
them,  quieting  with  a word  the  tempest  in  their  bosoms ; and  then,  hav- 
ing allayed  the  tumult  of  the*  outward  elements,  be  again  turned  to  them, 
and  more  leisurely  blamed  them  for  their  lack  of  faith  in  him.J 

Yet  is  it  to  be  observed  that  he  does  not,  in  St.  Matthew,  call  them 
“ without  faith,”  but  “ of  little  faith .”§  They  were  not  wholly  without 
faith ; for,  believing  in  the  midst  of  their  unbelief,  they  turned  to  Christ 
in  their  need.  They  had  faith,  but  it  was  not  quick  and  lively,  it  was 
riot  at  hand  as  it  should  have  been ; a Where  is  your  faith  ?”  as  in  St. 
Luke  he  asks ; so  that  it  was  like  a weapon  which  a soldier  has,  bijt 
yet  has  mislaid,  and  cannot  lay  hold  of  in  the  moment  of  extremest  neecj. 
The  imperfection  of  their  faith  consisted  not  in  this,  that  they  appealed 


* Jerome  {Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc.) : Hujus  signi  typum  in  Jona  legimus,  quandb 
ceteris  periclitantibus  ipse  securus  est  et  dormit  et  suscitatur : et  imperio  ac  Sacra- 
mento Passionis  suae  liberat  suscitantes. 

f On  the  different  exclamations  of  fear  which  the  different  Evangelists  put  into 
the  mouth  of  the  disciples,  Augustine  says  excellently  well  (De  Cons.  Evang.,  1.  % 
c.  24) : Una  eademque  sententia  est  excitantium  Dominum,  volentiumque  salvari : 
nee  opus  est  quserere  quid  horum  potius  Christo  dictum  sit.  Sive  enim  aliquid  ho- 
rum  trium  dixerint,  sive  alia  verba  quae  nullus  Evangelistarum  commemoravit,  pan- 
tumdem  tamen  valentia  ad  eandem  sententiae  veritatem,  quid  ad  rem  interest  ? Amd 
presently  after  (c.  28) : Per  hujusmodi  Evangelistarum  locutiones  varias,  sed  nonicon- 
trarias,  rem  plane  utilissimam  discimus  et  pernecessariam ; nihil  in  cuj usque  verbis 
nos  debere  inspicere,  nisi  voluntatem,  cui  debent  verba  servire : nee  mentiri  quem- 
quam,  si  aliis  verbis  dixerit  quid-ille  voluerit,  cujus  verba  non  dicit ; ne  miseri  jiucu- 
pes  vocum,  apicibus  quodammodo  literarum  putent  ligandam  esse  veritatem  cum 
utique  non  in  verbis  tantum,  set  etiam  in  cseteris  omnibus  signis  animorum,  non  sit 
nisi  ipse  animus  inquirendus.  Cf.  c.  66,  in  fine. 

^ Theophylact:  Tlporov  iravaag  rbv  x£Ly^va  Tyg  i avrdv,  tote  \vel  ku  tov 
Trjg  dakaaorig. 

§ Not  uttuttoi,  but  ohyoTTLGTOL.  The  “ How  is  it  ye  have  no  faith?”  of  St.  Hark, 
must  be  overruled  and  explained  by  this  word,  and  not  vice  versd. 


THE  STILLIHH  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


121 


unto  their  Lord  for  help,  for  herein  was  faith;* * * §  but  in  the  excess  of  their 
terror,  in  their  counting  it  possible  that  the  ship  which  bore  their  Lord, 
could  ever  truly  perish,  f 

But  especially  noticeable  are  the  words  with  which  that  Lord,  as  all 
three  Evangelists  relate,  quieted  the  storm.  He  “ rebuked  the  winds  and 
the  sea in  the  spirit  of  which  words  St.  Mark  relates,  further,  a more 
direct  address  to  the  furious  elements,  “ Peace , be  still”\  which  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  a mere  oratorical  personification.  Rather,  as  Mal- 
donatus  truly  remarks,  there  is  in  these  words  a distinct  recognition  of 
Satan  and  the  powers  of  evil  as  the  authors  of  the  disharmony  in  the 
outward  world,  a tracing  of  all  these  disorders  up  to  their  source  in  a 
person,  a carrying  of  them  back  to  him  as  to  their  ultimate  ground.  The 
Lord  elsewhere  uses  the  same  form  of  address  to  a fever,  for  it  is  said 
that  he  rebuked  it,  (Luke  iv.  39,)  where  the  same  remarks  will  hold 
good. 

And  in  the  hour  of  her  wildest  uproar,  nature  yielded  obedience  unto 
him,  who  was  come  to  reassert  man’s  dominion  over  her,  and  over  the 
evil  powers,  which  held  her  in  thrall,  and  had  made  her,  who  should 
have  always  been  his  willing  handmaid,  to  be  oftentimes  the  instrument 
of  his  harm  and  ruin.§  And  his  word  was  sufficient  for  this.  He 
needed  not,  as  Moses,  to  stretch  a rod  over  the  deep ; he  needed  not,  as 
his  servant  had  needed,  an  instrument  of  power,  foreign  to  himself,  with 
which  to  do  his  mighty  work ; but  only  at  his  word  “ the  wind  ceased,  || 

* Something  of  the  same  kind  we  see  in  John  the  Baptist.  Ho  doubt  there  was 
a shaking  of  his  faith  before  he  could  send  to  Jesus  with  the  question,  “ Art  thou  he 
that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ?”  (Matt.  xi.  3 ;)  but  that  he  sent  to 
Jesus  and  to  no  other  to  resolve  him  this  doubt,  proved  that  the  faith  which  was  as- 
saulted, yet  was  not  overthrown. 

•j-  They  are  blamed,  not  for  fearing,  but  for  being  ovru  deiXol.  Calvin : Qua 
particula  notat  eos  extra  modum  pavescere ; ....  quemlibet  vero  timorem  non  esse 
fidei  contrarium,  inde  patet,  quod  si  nihil  metuimus,  obrepit  supina  carnis  securitas. 

X ’Ziurra,  7te(j)tfiuG0.  We  may  compare  Ps.  cvi.  9 : “ He  rebuked  (eTTiTl/uriae,  LXX.) 
the  Red  Sea  also,”  although  there,  as  in  a poem,  the  same  stress  cannot  be  laid  on 
the  word  as  here. 

§ A notable  specimen  of  the  dexterity  with  which  a neological  interpretation 
may  be  insinuated  into  a book  of  geography  occurs  in  Rohr’s  Paldstina,  p.  59,  in 
many  respects  a useful  manual  of  the  Holy  Land.  Speaking  of  this  lake,  and  the 
usual  gentleness  and  calmness  of  its  waters,  he  adds,  that  it  is  from  time  to  time 
disturbed  by  squalls  from  the  neighboring  hills,  which  yet,  “ last  not  long,  nor  are 
very  perilous.  (Matt.  viii.  23 — 27.)”  What  his  reference  to  this  passage  means  is 
at  once  clear,  and  may  be  seen  more  largely  expressed  in  Kuinoel,  or  any  other  ra- 
tionalist commentary,  in  loc. 

I ’EKo^aoev,  as  one  ceases  out  of  weariness  (Koirdfa,  from  noTrog).  TaXjjvij,  proba- 
bly not,  some  propose,  from  yd'ka , to  express  the  soft  milky  color  of  the  calm  sea, 

1G 


122 


THE  STILLING  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


and  there  was  a great  calm”  And  then  is  added  the  moral  effect  which 
this  great  wonder  exercised  on  the  minds  of  those  that  were  in  the  ship 
with  him ; — it  may  he,  also  on  those  that  were  in  the  “ other  little  ships” 
which  St.  Mark  has  noted  as  sailing  in  their  company : “ The  men  mar 
veiled , saying , What  manner  of  man  is  this,  that  even  the  winds  and  th » 
sea  obey  him  ?”  an  exclamation  which  only  can  find  its  answer  in  ano- 
ther exclamation  of  the  Psalmist,  “ 0 Lord  God  of  Hosts,  who  is  like 
unto  thee  ? Thou  rulest  the  raging  of  the  sea : when  the  waves  thereof 
arise,  thou  stillest  them.”  (Ps.  lxxix.  8,  9.)*  We  see  then  here  one  of 
the  moral  purposes  to  which,  in  the  providence  of  God,  who  ordered  all 
things  for  the  glory  of  his  Son,  this  miracle  should  serve.  It  should 
lead  his  disciples  into  thoughts  ever  higher  and  more  awful  of  that  Lord 
whom  they  followed,  and  should  more  and  more  bring  them  to  feel  that 
in  nearness  to  him  was  all  safety  and  deliverance  from  every  danger. 
The  danger  which  exercised,  should  strengthen  their  faith, — who  indeed 
had  need  of  a mighty  faith,  since  God,  in  St.  Chrysostom’s  words,  had 
chosen  them  to  be  the  athletes  of  the  universe. f 

An  old  expositor  has  somewhat  boldly  said,  “ This  power  of  the 
Lord’s  word,  this  admiration  of  them  that  were  with  him  in  the  ship, 
holy  David  had  predicted  in  the  Psalms,  saying,  ‘ They  that  go  down  to 
the  sea  in  ships,  that  do  business  in  great  waters,  these  see  the  works  of 
the  Lord,  and  his  wonders  in  the  deep,’  ” and  so  forward.  (Ps.  cviii. 
23 — 30.)  And  as  in  the  spiritual  world,  the  inward  is  ever  shadowed 
forth  by  the  outward,  we  may  regard  this  outward  fact  but  as  the  cloth- 
ing of  an  inward  truth  which  in  the  language  of  this  miracle  the  Lord 
declares  unto  men.  He  would  set  himself  forth  as  the  true  Prince  of 
Peace,  (Isai.  xi.  6 — 9,)  as  the  speaker  of  peace  to  the  troubled  and 
storm-stirred  heart  of  man,  whether  the  storms  that  stir  it  be  his  own  in- 

but  from  yeldu.  So  Catullus,  describing  the  gently-stirred  water, — leni  resonant 
plangore  cachinni. 

* Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc .,  1.  4,  c.  20) : Quum  transfretat,  Psalmus  expungitur, 

Dominus,  inquit,  super  aquas  multas  [Ps.  xxxix.  3]  : quum  undas  freti  discutit,  Abacuc 
adimpletur,  Dispargens,  inquit,  aquas  itinere  [Hab,  iii.  15]:  quum  ad  minas  eju» 
eliditur  mare,  Naum  quoque  absolvitur ; Comminans,  inquit,  mari,  et  arefaciens  illud, 
[Nah.  i.  4,]  utique  cum  ventis  quibus  inquietabatur. 

f Bengel : Jesus  habebat  scholam  ambulantem.  et  in  ea  schola  multo  solidius  insti- 
tuti  sunt  discipuli,  quam  si  sub  tecto  unius  collegii  sine  ull&  solicitudine  atque  tenta- 
tione  vixissent. — The  fact  which  has  perplexed  some,  that,  apparently,  the  apostles 
were  never  baptized,  at  least  with  Christ’s  baptism,  has  been  by  others  curiously 
enough  explained,  that  as  the  children  of  Israel  were  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  Red 
Sea,  (1  Cor.  x.  2,)  so  the  apostles  were  in  this  storm  baptized  into  Christ.  Tertullian 
(De  JBapt.,  c.  12) : Alii  plan 6 satis  coacte  injiciunt,  tunc  apostolos  baptismi  vicera 
implesse,  quum  in  navicula  fluctibus  adspersi  operti  sunt. 


THE  STILLING  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


123 


ner  passions,  or  life’s  outward  calamities  and  temptations.  Thus  Au- 
gustine, making  application  of  all  parts  of  the  miracle : — “ W e are  sail- 
ing in  this  life  as  through  a sea,  and  the  wind  rises,  and  storms  of  temp- 
tations are  not  wanting.  Whence  is  this,  save  because  Jesus  is  sleeping 
in  thee?  If  he  were  not  sleeping  in  thee,  thou  wouldest  have  calm 
within.  But  what  means  this,  that  Jesus  is  sleeping  in  thee,  save  that 
thy  faith,  which  is  from  Jesus,  is  slumbering  in  thine  heart  % What 
shalt  thou  do  to  be  delivered  ? Arouse  him  and  say,  Master,  we  perish. 
He  will  awaken ; that  is,  thy  faith  will  return  to  thee,  and  abide  with 
thee  always.  When  Christ  is  awakened,  though  the  tempest  beat  into, 
yet  it  will  not  fill,  thy  ship ; thy  faith  will  now  command  the  winds  and 
the  waves,  and  the  danger  will  be  over.”  * 

Nor  shall  we  in  any  wise  do  wrong  to  the  literal  truth  of  this  or 
any  other  of  Christ’s  miracles,  by  recognizing  the  character  at  once 
symbolic  and  prophetic,  which,  no  doubt,  many  of  them  also  bear,  and 
this  among  the  number.  As  the  kernel  of  the  old  humanity,  Noah  and 
his  family,  was  once  contained  in  the  Ark  which  was  tossed  upon  the 
waves  of  the  deluge,  so  the  kernel  of  the  new  humanity,  of  the  new 
creation,  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  this  little  ship.  And  the  Church 
of  Christ  has  evermore  resembled  this  tempested  bark,  in  that  the  waves 

* Enarr.  in  Ps.  xciii.  19 : Si  cessaret  Deus  et  non  misceret  amaritudines  felicitati- 
bus  seculi,  oblivisceremur  eum.  Sed  ubi  angores  molestiarum  faciunt  fluctus  animse, 
fides  ilia  quae  ibi  dormiebat,  excitetur.  Tranquillum  enim  erat,  quando  dormivit 
Christus  in  mari : illo  dormiente,  tempestas  orta  est,  et  coeperunt  periclitari.  Ergo  in 
corde  Christiano  et  tranquillitas  erit  et  pax,  sed  quamdiu  vigilat  fides  nostra : si  autem 

dormit  fides  nostra,  periclitamur Sed  quomodo  ilia  navis  cum  fluctuaret,  excitatus 

est  Christus  a fluctuantibus  et  dicentibus,  Domine,  perimus : surrexit  ille,  imperavit 
tempestatibus,  imperavit  fluctibus,  cessavit  periculum,  facta  est  tranquillitas,  sic  et  te 
cum  turbant  concupiscentise  malse,  persuasiopes  malse,  fluctus  sunt,  tranquillabuntur. 
Jam  despera-s  et  putas  te  non  pertinere  ad  Dominum ; Evigilet  fides  tua,  excita  Chris- 
tum in  corde  tuo : surgente  fide,  jam  agnoscis  ubi  sis ; ... . Evigilante  Christo  tranquille- 
tur  cor  tuum,  ut  ad  portum  quoque  pervenias.  Thus  again  ( InEv . Joh.,  Tract.  49) : Fides 

tua  de  Christo,  Christus  est  in  corde  tuo Intrant  venti  cor  tuum,  utique  ibi  navigas, 

ubi  hanc  vitam  tanquam  procellosum  et  periculosum  pelagus  transis ; intrant  venti,  mo- 
vent fluctus,  turbant  navim.  Qui  sunt  venti  ? Audisti  convicium,  irasceris : convicium 
ventus  est,  iracundia  fluctus' est : periclitaris,  disponis  respondere,  disponis  maledictum 
maledicto  reddere,  jam  navis  propinquat  naufragio;  excita  Christum  dormientem. 
Ideo  enim  fluctuas,  et  mala  pro  malis  reddere  praeparas,  quia  Christus  dormit  in  navL 
In  corde  enim  tuo  somnus  Christi,  oblivio  fidei.  Nam  si  excites  Christum,  id  est, 
recolas  fidem,  quid  tibi  dicit  tanquam  vigilans  Christus  in  corde  tuo  ? Ego  audivi, 
Dsemonium  habes,  et  pro  eis  oravi ; audit  Dominus  et  patitur ; audit  servus  et  indig- 
natur.  Sed  vindicari  vis.  Quid  enim,  ego  jam  sum  vindicatus  ? Cum  tibi  haec  lo- 
quitur fides  tua,  quasi  imperatur  ventis  et  fluctibus,  et  fit  tranquillitas  magna.  Cf. 
Serm.  63  ; Enarr.  in  Ps.  lv.  8 ; and  Enarr.  2a  in  Ps.  xxv.  in  init. 


124 


THE  STILLING-  OF  THE  TEMPEST. 


of  the  world  rage  horribly  around  it,  in  that  it  has  evermore  been  de- 
livered out  of  the  perils  which  seemed  ready  to  overwhelm  it,  and  this 
because  Christ  is  in  it ; who  being  roused  by  the  cry*of  his  servants, 
rebukes  these  winds  and  these  waters,  before  they  utterly  overwhelm 
this  ship.*  In  the  Old  Testament  Ezekiel  gives  us  a magnificent 
picture  of  a worldly  kingdom  under  the  image  of  a stately  and  gor- 
geous galley,  which  he  describes  with  every  circumstance  that  could 
heighten  its  glory  and  its  beauty  (xxvii.  4 — 9) ; but  that  ship  with  all 
its  outward  bravery  and  magnificence  utterly  perishes;  “thy  rowers 
have  brought  thee  into  great  waters ; the  east  wind  hath  broken  thee  in 
the  midst  of  the  seas,”  and  they  that  have  hoped  in  it  and  embarked  in 
it  their  treasures,  wail  over  its  wreck  with  a bitter  wailing ; (ver.  26 — 
36 ;)  this  kingdom  of  God  meanwhile,  which  seems  by  comparison  but 
as  the  slight  and  unhonored  fishing  boat  that  every  wave  would  ingulf, 
rides  triumphantly  over  all,  and  comes  safely  into  haven  at  the  last. 

* Tertuilian  {Be  Bapt.,  c.  12) : Caeterum  navicula  ilia  figuram  Ecclesise  praeie- 
rebat,  quod  in  mari,  id  est  seculo,  fluctibus,  id  est  persecutionibus  et  tentationibus, 
inquietatur,  Domino  per  patientiam  velut  dormiente,  donee  orationibus  sanctorum  in 
ultimis  suscitatus,  compescat  seculum  et  tranquillitatem  suis  reddat.  Ambrose: 
Arbor  quaedam  in  navi  est  crux  in  Ecclesia,  qua  inter  tot  totius  saeculi  blanda  et  per- 
niciosa  naufragia  incolumis  sola  servatur.  Compare  a passage  of  much  beauty  in 
the  Clementine  Homilies  (Coteler.  Patt.  Apostt.,  v.  1,  p.  609)  beginning  thus : 
"E olkev  yag  oXov  rb  n pdypa  ryg  iKnXyolag  vyl  peyaXy,  did  cQodpov  x£Llud)vog  uvdpag 
(pepovey  ek  7toXX<x>v  tottuv  ovrag,  Kai  [itav  Tivd  ayadyg  PaciXsiag  ttoXiv  oikeiv  OeXovtuc, 
tc.  r.  X.  The  image  of  the  world  as  a great  ship,  whereof  God  was  at  once  the 
maker  and  the  pilot,  was  familiar  to  the  Indians  (Philostratus,  Be  Vita  Apollonii , 
1.  8,  c.  35  ; Yon  Bohlen,  Bas  Alte  Indien),  and  the  same  symbolic  meaning  lay  in  the 
procession  of  Egyptian  priests  bearing  the  sacred  ship  (the  navigium  auratum,  Curt., 
1.  4.  c.  7)  full  of  the  images  of  the  gods.  In  Egypt  it  was  the  favorite  manner  to 
represent  the  gods  as  sailing  in  a shig.  (Creuzer’s  Symbolik,  v.  2,  p.  9,  3rd  edit.) 
All  this  was  recognized  in  the  early  Christian  art,  where  the  Church  is  continually 
set  forth  as  a ship,  against  which  the  personified  winds  are  fighting.  ( Christliche 
Kunst  Symbolik,  p.  159.)  Aringhi  describes  an  old  seal-ring  in  which  the  Church 
appears  as  this  ship,  sustained  and  supported  by  a great  fish  in  the  sea  beneath, 
(Christ  the  ’IX0Y2,  according  to  Ps.  lxxii.  17,  Aquila,)  on  its  mast  and  poop  twe 
doves  sitting,  so  that  the  three  Clementine  symbols,  the  ship,  the  doye,  and  the  fish, 
appear  here  united  in  a single  group. 


V. 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE  COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


Matt.  viii.  28 — 34;  Mark  v.  1—20;  Luke  viii.  26 — 39. 


Before  entering  upon  this,  the  most  important,  and,  in  many  respects, 
the  most  difficult  of  the  demoniac  cures  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid  making  generally  a few  prefatory  remarks  on  the 
subject  of  the  demoniacs*  of  Scripture.  It  is  a subject  of  which  the 
difficulty  is  very  much  enhanced  by  the  fact  that,  as  in  the  case  of 
some  of  the  spiritual  gifts,  the  gift,  for  instance,  of  tongues,  the  thing 
itself,  if  it  still  survives  among  us,  yet  does  so  no  longer  under  the 
same  name,  nor  yet  with  the  same  frequency  and  intensity  as  of  old. 
We  are  obliged  to  put  together,  as  best  we  can,  the  separate  notices 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  and  from  them  seek  to  frame  some 
scheme,  which  will  answer  the  demands  of  the  different  phenomena ; we 
have  not,  at  least  with  certainty,  the  thing  itself  to  examine  and  to  ques- 
tion, before  our  eyes. 

It  is,  of  course,  easy  enough  to  cut  short  the  whole  inquiry,  and  to 
leave  no  question  at  all,  by  saying  these  demoniacs  were  persons  whom 
we  should  ca11  insane — epileptic,  maniac,  melancholic.  This  has  been 
often  said,  and  the  oftener  perhaps,  because  there  is  a partial  truth  in 
tne  view  that  these  possessions  were  bodily  maladies.  There  was  no 


* The  most  common  name  in  Scripture  for  one  thus  possessed  is  daipoviZopevog, 
(Matt.  iv.  24,  and  often.)  Besides  this,  daipovicdeig,  (Mark  v.  18;  Luke  viii.  36;) 
dvOpuTrog  kv  TzvevpaTL  dnaOdpTw,  (Mark  i.  2, 3 ;)  §xuv  nvev/ia  dmOapTov,  (Acts  viii.  7 ;) 
tyuv  Saipovia , (Luke  viii.  27',)  dvOpunog  exuv  nvevpa  daipoviov  d/caOdprov.  (Luke  iv 
38.)  Other  more  general  descriptions,  KaradwaoTevopevog  vird-  tov  diafiolov,  (Acts 
x,  38 ;)  ox^ovpevog  V7rd  nveyparuv  aKadapTov.  (Luke  vi.  18 ; Acts  v.  16.)  In 
classic  Greek,  one  thus  possessed  was  said  daipovav,  naKodai/uovav,  and  the  state  of 
possession  was  called  KaKodai/uovia. 


126 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


doubt  a substratum  of  disease,  which  in  many  cases  helped  to  lay  open 
to  the  deeper  evil,  and  upon  which  it  was  superinduced  :*  and  in  agree- 
ment with  this  view,  we  may  observe  that  cases  of  possession  are  at 
once  classed  with  those  of  various  sicknesses,  and  at  the  same  time 
distinguished  from  them,  by  the  Evangelists ; who  thus  at  once  mark 
the  relation  and  the  difference.  (Matt.  iv.  24;  viii.  16;  Mark  i.  33.) 
But  the  scheme  which  confounds  these  cases  with  those  of  disease,  does 
not,  as,  I think,  every  reverent  handler  of  God’s  word  must  own,  ex- 
haust the  matter ; it  cannot  be  taken  as  a satisfying  solution ; and  this 
for  more  reasons  than  one. 

And  first,  our  Lord  himself  uses  language  which  is  not  reconcilable 
with  such  a theory ; he  every  where  speaks  of  demoniacs  not  as  per- 
sons merely  of  disordered  intellects,  but  as  subjects  and  thralls  of  an 
alien  spiritual  might ; he  addresses  the  evil  spirit  as  distinct  from  the 
man ; “ Hold  thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him.”  (Mark  i.  25.)  And 
the  poor  reply,  that  he  fell  into  and  humored  the  notions  of  the  afflicted 
in  order  to  facilitate  their  cure,f  is  cut  off  by  the  fact  that  in  his  most 
confidential  discourses  with  his  disciples  he  uses  exactly  the  same  lan- 
guage. (Matt.  x.  8;  and  especially  xvii.  21,  “This  kind  goeth  not 
out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting.”)];  The  allegiance  we  owe  to  Christ  as 
the  King  of  truth,  who  came,  not  to  fall  in  with  men’s  errors,  but  to 
deliver  men  out  of  their  errors,  compels  us  to  believe  that  he  would 
never  have  used  language  which  would  have  upheld  and  confirmed  so 
great  an  error  in  the  minds  of  men  as  the  supposition  of  Satanic  influ- 
ences, which  did  not  in  truth  exist.  For  this  error,  if  it  was  an  error, 

* Origen  (in  Matth.,  tom.  13,  c.  6)  finds  fault  with  some,  ( iarpoi , lie  calls  them,) 
who  in  his  day  saw  in  the  youth  mentioned  Matt.  xvii.  14,  only  one  afflicted  with 
the  falling  sickness.  He  himself  runs  into  the  opposite  extreme,  and  will  see  no 
nature  there,  because  they  saw  nothing  but  nature. 

f Not  to  say  that  such  treatment  had  been  sure  to  fail.  Schubert,  in  his  book, 
full  of  wisdom  and  love.  Die  KranTcheiten  und  Storungen  der  menschlichen  Scele, 
several  times  observes  how  fatal  all  giving  into  a madman’s  delusions  is  for  his  reco- 
very ; how  sure  it  is  to  defeat  its  own  objects.  He  is  living  in  a world  of  falsehood, 
and  what  he  wants  is  not  more  falsehood,  but  some  truth — the  truth  indeed  in  love, 
but  still  only  the  truth.  And  I know  that  the  greatest  physicians  in  this  line  in 
England  act  exactly  upon  this  principle. 

j;  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe,  that  by  this  “ going  out”  that  is  not  implied, 
which  Arnobius  (Adv.  Gent.,  1.  1,  c.  45)  in  the  rudest  manner  expresses,  when  he 
speaks  of  gens  ilia  mersorum  in  visceribus  dsemonum.  The  notion  of  a ventriloquism 
such  as  this,  of  a spirit  having  his  lodging  in  the  body  of  a man,  could  only  arise 
from  a gross  and  entire  confusion  of  the  spiritual  >and  material,  and  has  been  de- 
clared by  great  teachers  of  the  Church  not  to  be  what  they  understand  by  this 
language.  (See  Pet.  Lombard,  Sentent.,  1.  2,  dist.  8.) 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


127 


was  so  little  an  innocuous  one,  that  might  have  been  safely  left  to  drop 
naturally  away,  was,  on  the  contrary,  one  which  reached  so  far  in  its 
consequences,  entwined  its  roots  so  deeply  among  the  very  ground- 
truths  of  religion,  that  it  could  never  have  been  suffered  to  remain  at 
the  hazard  of  all  the  misgrowths  which  it  must  needs  have  occasioned. 

And  then,  moreover,  even  had  not  the  matters  at  stake  been  so  im- 
portant, our  idea  of  Christ’s  absolute  veracity,  apart  from  the  value  of 
the  truth  which  he  communicated,  our  idea  of  him  as  the  Verax , no 
less  than  the  Verus  and  the  Veritas , will  not  permit  us  to  suppose  that 
he  used  the  language  which  he  did,  well  knowing  that  there  was  no 
answerable  thing,  on  which  the  language  was  founded.  And  in  this 
there  is  no  making  a conscience  about  gnats,  nor  denying  that  figu- 
rative nature  of  all  our  words,  out  of  which  it  results  that  much  which 
is  not  literally  true,  is  yet  most  true,  inasmuch  as  it  conveys  the  truest 
impression, — no  requiring  men  to  look  into  the  derivations  of  their 
words  before  they  venture  to  use  them.  It  had  been  one  thing  for  the 
Lord  to  have  fallen  in  with  the  popular  language,  and  to  have  spoken 
of  persons  under  various  natural  afflictions  as  “possessed,”  supposing 
he  had  found  such  a language  current,  but  now  no  longer,  however 
once  it  might  have  been,  vividly  linked  to  the  idea  of  possession  by 
spirits  of  evil.  This  had  been  no  more  than  our  speaking  of  certain 
forms  of  madness  as  lunacy  ; not  thereby  implying  that  we  believe  the 
moon  to  have,  or  to  have  had,  any  influence  upon  them  ;*  but  finding 
the  word,  we  use  it : and  this  the  more  readily,  since  its  original  deri- 
vation is  so  entirely  lost  sight  of  in  our  common  conversation,  its  first 
impress  so  completely  worn  off, . that  we  do  not  thereby  even  seem  to 
countenance  an  error.  But  suppose  with  this  same  disbelief  in  lunar 
influences,  we  were  to  begin  to  speak  not  merely  of  lunatics,  but  of 
persons  on  whom  the  moon  was  working,  to  describe  the  cure  of  such, 
as  the  moon’s  ceasing  to  afflict  them ; or  if  a physician  were  solemnly 
to  address  the  moon,  bidding  it  to  abstain  from  harming  his  patient, 
there  would  be  here  a passing  over  into  quite  a different  region;  we 
should  be  here  directly  countenancing  superstition  and  delusion;  and 
plainly  speaking  untruly  with  our  lips ; there  would  be  that  gulf  be- 
tween our  thoughts  and  our  words,  in  which  the  essence  of  a lie  con- 
sists. Now  Christ  does  every  where  speak  in  such  a language  as  this. 
Take,  for  instance,  his  words,  Luke  xi.  17 — 20,  and  assume  him  as 
knowing,  all  the  while  he  was  thus  speaking,  that  the  whole  Jewish 

* There  are  cases  of  lunambulism,  in  which  no  doubt  it  has  influence ; but  they 
are  few  and  exceptional.  (See  Schubert,  p.  113.)  I am  speaking  of  using  the  term 
to  express  all  forms  of  mental  unsoundness. 


128 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


theory  of  demoniac  possessions  was  utterly  baseless,  that  there  was  no 
power  of  the  kind  which  Satan  exercised  over  the  spirits  of  men,  and 
what  should  we  have  here  for  a king  of  truth  ? 

And  then,  besides  this,  the  phenomena  themselves  are  such  as  no 
theory  of  the  kind  avails  to  explain,  and  they  thus  bid  us  to  seek  for  some 
more  satisfying  solution.  For  that  madness  was  not  the  constituent  ele- 
ment in  the  demoniac  state  is  clear,  since  not  only  we  have  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  supposing  that  the  Jews  would  have  considered  all 
maniacs,  epileptic  or  melancholic  persons,  to  be  under  the  power  of  evil 
spirits : but  we  have  distinct  evidence  that  the  same  malady  they  did 
sometimes  attribute  to  an  evil  spirit,  and  sometimes  not,  thus  showing 
that  the  malady  and  possession  were  not  identical  in  their  eyes,  and 
that  the  assumption  of  the  latter  was  not  a mere  popular  explanation  for 
the  presence  of  the  former.  Thus,  on  two  occasions  they  bring  to  the 
Lord  those  that  were  dumb,  (Matt.  ix.  32 ; xii.  22 ; on  the  second 
occasion  it  is  one  dumb  and  blind;)  and  in  each  of  these  cases  the 
dumbness  is  traced  up  to  an  evil  spirit.  Yet  it  is  plain  that  they  did  not 
consider  all  dumbness  as  having  this  root ; for  in  the  history  given  by 
St.  Mark,  (vii.  32,)  of  one  deaf  and  dumb,  that  was  the  subject  of 
Christ’s  healing  power,  it  is  the  evident  intention  of  the  Evangelist  to 
describe  one  laboring  only  under  a natural  defect;  there  is  not  the 
slightest  appearance  there  of  a desire  to  trace  the  source  of  his  malady 
to  any  demoniacal  influence.  There  were  no  doubt  signs  which  were 
sufficiently  distinct  by  which  the  different  sources  of  the  same  defect 
were  capable  of  being  known : in  the  case  of  the  demoniac  there  pro- 
bably was  not  the  outward  hindrance,  not  the  still-fastened  string  of  the 
tongue ; it  was  not  the  outward  organ,  but  the  inward  power  of  using 
the  organ,  which  was  at  fault.  This,  with  an  entire  apathy,  a total  dis- 
regard of  all  which  was  going  on  about  him,  may  have  sufficiently 
indicated  that  the  cause  of  his  malady  lay  deeper  than  on  the  surface. 
But,  whatever  may  have  been  the  signs  which  enabled  those  about  the 
sufferers  to  make  these  distinctions,  the  fact  itself  that  they  did  so  dis- 
criminate between  cases  of  the  very  same  malady,  proves  decisively 
that  there  were  not  certain  diseases  which,  without  more  ado,  they  attri- 
buted directly  to  Satan : but  that  they  did  designate  by  this  name  of 
possession,  a condition  which,  while  it  was  very  often  a condition  of  dis- 
ease, was  also  always  a condition  of  much  more  than  disease. 

But  what  was  the  condition  which  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  signal- 
ized by  this  name  *?  in  what  did  it  differ,  upon  the  one  side,  from  mad- 
ness,— upon  the  other,  from  wickedness  1 It  will  be  impossible  to  make 
any  advance  toward  the  answer,  without  saying  something,  by  way  of 
preface,  on  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  kingdom  of  evil,  and 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADAEENES. 


129 


its  personal  head,  and  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  the  moral  evil 
of  our  world.  Alike  excluding,  on  the  one  side,  the  Manichaean  doc- 
trine, which  would  make  evil  eternal  as  good,  and  so  itself  a god, — and 
the  pantheistic,  which  would  deny  any  true  reality  to  evil  at  all,  or  that 
it  is  any  thing  else  than  good  at  a lower  stage,  the  unripe  and  therefore 
still  bitter  fruit, — the  Scripture  teaches  the  absolute  subordination  of  evil 
to  good,  and  its  subsequence  of  order,  in  the  fact  that  the  evil  roots  itself 
in  a creature,  and  one  created  originally  pure,  but  the  good  in  the  Cre- 
ator. Yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  teaches  that  the  opposition  of  this  evil 
to  the  will  of  God  is  most  real,  is  that  of  a will  which  does  truly  set 
itself  against  his  will ; that  the  world  is  not  a chess-board  on  which  God 
is  in  fact  playing  both  sides  of  the  game,  however  some  of  the  pieces 
may  be  black  and  some  white ; but  that  the  whole  end  of  his  govern- 
ment of  the  world  is  the  subduing  of  this  evil ; that  is,  not  abolishing  it 
by  main  force,  which  were  no  true  victory,  but  overcoming  it  by  right- 
eousness and  truth.  And  from  this  one  central  will,  alienated  from  the 
will  of  God,  the  Scripture  derives  all  the  evil  in  the  universe ; all 
gathers  up  in  a person,  the  devil,  who  has  most  truly  a kingdom,  as 
God  has, — a kingdom  with  its  subordinate  ministers, — “ the  devil  and 
his  angels.”*  This  world  of  ours  stands  not  isolated,  not  rounded  and 


* The  devil,  the  central  power  of  evil,  is  never  in  Scripture  called  daifiuv  or 
daifioviov,  nor  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  his  inferior  ministers  8ia{3oloL  In  regard  of  the 
words  daifioviov  and  8 ai/iiov,  the  first  is  in  the  New  Testament  of  far  the  most  frequent 
occurrence,  being  used  sixty  times,  while  daipuv  occurs  but  five  times.  The  words  are 
not  perhaps  perfectly  equivalent ; but  there  is  more  of  personality  implied  in  Saifiov 
than  8ai/ioviov.  Other  terms  are  Ttvevpa  Tcovrjpov,  wvev/ia  uKaddprov,  Trvev/ia  daifioviov 
unaOdprov , and  at  Matt.  viii.  16,  the  r are  simply  ra  irvEv/iara.  The  word  daiuuv  ( = 
daijfiuv)  is  either  derived  from  Sdu,  scio,  and  then  signifies  “ the  knowing,”  the  full 
of  insight,  (in  oldest  Greek  dd/iuv,)  while  to  know  is  the  special  prerogative  of  spirit- 
ual beings ; (ob  scientiam  nominati,  Augustine,  Be  Civ.  Dei,  1.  9,  c.  20 ; as  our  En- 
glish “witch”  is  perhaps  from  wissen,  to  know;)  or  else  from  Saiio,  in  its  sense  of 
to  divide ; the  daijioveq  are  then  the  distributors,  the  dividers  and  allotters  of  good 
and  of  evil  to  men,  and  dai/iov  would  thus  be  very  much  the  same  as  M olpa,  derived 
from  fiepog,  a portion.  And  this  derivation  has  its  superiority  in  that  ever  a feeling 
of  the  fateful  is  linked  with  the  word.  Thus,  the  man  to  whom  the  epithet  daifiovioq 
is  applied,  is  one  under  an  especial  leading  of  the  higher  powers,  whether  that  lead- 
ing is  to  glory  or  to  destruction.  In  classic  use  the  word  is  of  much  wider  sig- 
nificance than  in  scriptural,  embracing  all  intermediate  beings  between  men  and  the 
very  highest  divinities,  whether  the  deified  men  of  the  golden  age,  or  created  and 
inferior  powers ; and,  as  well  as  Satfiovioq,  is  a middle  term,  capable  of  being  applied 
to  the  highest  and  the  lowest,  and  first  deriving  from  its  adjunct  a good  or  an  evil 
significance ; thus  we  have  dyaOoSaipuv,  KanoSaifiov.  Yet  Augustine  (Be  Civ.  Bei, 
l.  59,  c.  19)  observes,  that  in  his  time  even  among  heathens  the  word  had  come  to 
be  used  only  in  malem  partem,  which  he  attributes  to  the  influence  which  the  Church 

n 


130 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


complete  in  itself,  but  in  living  relation  with  two  worlds, — a higher, 
from  which  all  good  in  it  proceeds, — and  this  lower,  from  which  all  evil. 
Thus  man’s  sin  is  continually  traced  up  to  Satan ; Peter  says  to  Ana- 
nias,  “Why  hath  Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Acts  v.  3;)  and  St.  John,  of  Judas  Iscariot,  “The  devil  having  now 
put  into  his  heart  to  betray  him,”  (John  xiii.  3;  cf.  1 John  iii.  8;  John 
viii.  44,)  the  Scripture  not  thereby  denying  that  the  evil  of  men  is  truly 
their  evil,  but  affirming  with  this,  that  it  has  its  ground  in  a yet  higher 
evil.  It  is  their  evil,  since  it  is  an  act  of  their  will  which  alone  gives 
it  leave  to  enter.  To  each  man  the  key  is  committed  and  the  task  given 
to  keep  closed  the  gate  of  his  soul  by  which  the  enemy  would  enter. 
But  it  is  also  true  that  it  is  the  existence  of  another  world,  of  evil  be- 
yond and  without  our  world,  which  makes  all  remissness  here  of  such 
fatal  and  disastrous  issue. 

This  being  so,  the  question  which  presents  itself  is  this,  namely, 
what  peculiar  form  of  the  working  of  these  dark  powers  of  hell  Scrip- 
ture designates  by  this  title  of  demoniacal  possessions.  We  have  not 
here  merely  great  sufferers;  we  have  not  in  the  demoniacs,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  victims  of  ghastly  and  horrible  diseases,  only  specimens  of  the 
mighty  woe  which  Satan  has  brought  in  upon  our  race  through  that  sin 
common  unto  all ; although  we  have  such  most  truly.  Nor  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  we  merely  signal  sinners,  eminent  servants  of  the  devil, 
who  with  heart  and  will  and  waking  consciousness  are  doing  his  work ; 
for  this,  whatever  their  antecedent  guilt  may  have  been,  and  often,  I 
should  imagine,  it  had*  been  great,  the  demoniacs  evidently  are  not.  But 
what  strikes  us  most  in  them  is  the  strange  blending  of  the  physical  and 
the  spiritual ; the  ':wo  regions  are  not  kept  separate ; there  is  a breaking 
up  of  all  the  harmony  of  the  lower,  no  less  than  of  the  higher  life ; the 
same  disorder  and  disorganization  manifests  itself  in  both.  This  too  is 
worthy  of  notice,  that  the  demoniac  does  not,  like  the  wicked,  stand  only 
in  near  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan  as  a whole ; but  his  state  is 
even  as  if  out  of  the  dark  hosts  of  the  abyss,  one,  or,  it  may  be,  more, 
had  singled  him  out  for  their  immediate  prey ; as  when  a lion  or  a leop- 
ard, not  hunting  merely  a herd  of  flying  antelopes,  has  fastened  upon 
and  is  drinking  out  the  life-blood  of  some  one. 

But  how  had  this  come  to  pass  ? how  had  men  sunken  into  this 
woful  state  ? been  suffered  to  be  entangled  so  far  in  the  bands  of  the 
devil,  or  so  fallen  under  the  dominion  of  one  or  more  of  his  angels  1 
Now  we  should  err,  no  doubt,  and  get  altogether  upon  a wrong  track,  if 

uae  of  the  word  only  in  that  sense,  had  spread  even  beyond  its  own  limits.  On  the 
Greek  idea  of  the  datyoveg,  see  Creuzer’s  masterly  discussion,  ( Symbolik , part  3,  pp 
*719 — '1 48,  3rd  edit.,)  and  S®lger’s  Nachgelassene  Schriften.  v.  2,  pp.  6-57 — >6 7-5. 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADAEENES. 


131 


we  were  to  conceive  of  the  demoniacs  as  the  worst  of  men,  and  their 
possession  as  the  plague  and  penalty  of  a wickedness  in  which  they  had 
eminently  surpassed  their  fellows.  Rather  we  must  judge  the  demoniac 
one  of  the  unhappiest,  hut  not  of  necessity  one  of  the  most  guilty,  of 
our  kind.'"  On  the  contrary,  the  most  eminent  representatives  and  or- 
gans of  Satan,  false  prophets  and  antichrists,  are  never  spoken  of  in  this 
language.f  We  all  feel  that  Judas’s  possession,  when  Satan  entered 
Into  him,  (John  xiii.  27,)  was  specifically  different  from  that  of  one  of 
the  unhappy  persons  whom  Christ  came  to  deliver.  Or,  to  borrow  an 
illustration  from  the  world  of  fiction,  we  should  not  speak  of  Iago  as 
SaifjLov^ofjjSvog,  however  all  the  deadliest  malignity  of  hell  was  concentra- 
ted in  him ; much  more  nearly  we  should  find  analogies  to  this  state  in 
some  moments  of  Hamlet’s  life.  The  Greek  poet  will  supply  us  with  a 
yet  apter  example ; it  is  the  noble  Orestes,  whom  the  “ dogs  of  hell” 
torture  into  madness ; the  obdurate  Clytemnestra  is  troubled  on  account 
of  her  deed  with  no  such  spectres  of  the  unseen  world.  Thus,  too,  in 

* This  is  exactly  Heinroth’s  exaggeration,  tracing  up,  as  he  does,  insanity  in  every 
case  to  foregoing  sin ; and  not  this  alone,  but  affirming,  that  none  who  had  not  fallen 
deeply  away  from  God  could  be  liable  to  this  infliction,  that  in  fact  they  are  those 
who  have  fallen  from  him  the  most  utterly,  the  outermost  circle  of  them  who  have 
obeyed  the  centrifugal  impulses  of  sin.  But  every  one  who  knows  what  manner  of 
persons  have  been  visited  by  this  terrible  calamity,  and  also  what  manner  of  persons 
have  not , at  once  revolts  against  this  doctrine  stated  in  this  breadth  and  thus  with- 
out qualification.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  his  unquestionable  merit  remains,  that  more 
distinctly,  I believe,  than  any  other  had  yet  done,  he  dared  to  say  out  that  such  cases 
were  to  be  looked  at  as  standing  in  a different,  and  oftentimes  far  nearer,  connection 
to  the  kingdom  of  evil  than  a fever  or  a broken  limb.  The  mere  fact  that  the  treat- 
ment of  insanity  is  more  and  more  allowed  on  all  sides  to  be  a moral  treatment,  and 
the  physical  remedies  to  be  merely  subsidiary  to  this,  that  almost  alone  out  of  this  its 
removal  may  be  hoped,  should  be  alone  sufficient  to  put  it  in  wholly  another  class 
from  every  other  disease.  The  attempt  to  range  it  with  them  is  merely  the  attempt 
natural  enough  in  those  who  know  not  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  to  avoid  looking 
down  into  the  awful  deeps  of  our  fallen  nature.  For  a list  of  Heinroth’s  works,  al- 
most all  bearing  upon  this  subject,  see  the  Conversations- Lexicon  in  the  article  on  his 
name.  In  speaking  on  such  a subject  he  had  the  inestimable  advantage  of  being  at 
once  a theologian  and  physician.  For  Schubert’s  more  qualified  opinion  Gn  the  same 
subject,  see  his  Krankheiten  und  Storungen  der  menschlichem  Seele,  p.  37. 

f So  the  accusation  of  the  people,  “ Thou  hast  a devil,”  (John  vii.  20 ; viii.  48,  52  • 
x.  20,)  was  quite  different  from,  and  betrayed  infinitely  less  deadly  malignity  than 
that  of  the  Pharisees,  that  he  cast  out  devils  by  Beelzebub.  (Matt.  xii.  24.)  That 
first  was  a common  coarse  blasphemy,  a stone  flung  at  random  ; this,  which  charged 
him  with  being  in  willing  alliance  with  the  prince  of  evil,  was  on  the  very  verge  of 
being  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  (ver.  31).  The  distinction  between  the  wicked 
and  the  demoniac  was  clearly  recognized  by  the  early  Church;  it  had  its  excommu- 
nications for  the  first,  its  exorcists  for  the  last. 


182 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


many  cases  of  actual  life,  the  deep  anguish  of  the  sinner  in  the  contem 
plation  of  his  sin  may  have  helped  on  this  overthrow  of  his  spiritual 
life, — anguish  which  a more  hardened  sinner  would  have  escaped,  but 
escaped  it  only  by  being  a worse  and  more  truly  devilish  man  ; so  that 
in  these  cases  of  possession  we  are  not  to  see  the  deliberate  giving  in  to 
the  satanic  will,  of  an  utterly  lost  soul,  but  the  still  irrecoverable  wreck 
of  that  which  oftentimes  was  once  a noble  spirit. 

And,  consistently  with  this,  we  find  in  the  demoniac  the  sense  of  a 
misery  in  which  he  does  not  acquiesce,  the  deep  feeling  of  inward  dis- 
cord, of  the  true  life  utterly  shattered,  of  an  alien  power  which  has  mas- 
tered him  wholly,  and  now  is  truly  lording  over  him,  and  ever  drawing 
farther  away  from  him  in  whom  only  any  created  intelligence  can  find 
rest  and  peace.  His  state  is  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word  “ a posses- 
sion another  is  ruling  in  the  high  places  of  his  soul,  and  has  cast 
down  the  rightful  lord  from  his  seat ; and  he  knows  this  ; and  out  of 
his  consciousness  of  it  there  goes  forth  from  him  a cry  for  redemption, 
so  soon  as  ever  a glimpse  of  hope  is  afforded,  an  unlooked-for  Redeemer 
draws  near.  This  sense  of  misery,  this  yearning  after  deliverance,  was, 
in  fact,  what  made  these  demoniacs  objects  and  subjects  for  Christ’s  heal- 
ing power.  Without  it  they  would  have  been  as  little  objects  of  this  as 
the  devils,  who  are  complete  and  circular  in  evil,  in  whom  there  is 
nothing  for  the  divine  grace  to  take  hold  of ; so  that  even  in  their  case, 
as  in  every  other,  faith  was  the  condition  of  healing.  There  was  in  them 
a spark  of  higher  life,  not  yet  trodden  out,  which,  indeed,  so  long  as  they 
were  alone,  was  but  light  enough  to  reveal  to  them  their  darkness ; and 
which  none  but  the  very  Lord  of  life  could  have  fanned  again  into  a 
flame.  But  He  who  came  to  dissolve  the  works  of  the  devil$  as  he 
showed  himself  lord  over  purely  physical  evil,  a healer  of  the  diseases 
of  men,  and  lord  also  of  purely  spiritual  evil,  a deliverer  of  men  from  their 
sins — he  showed  himself  also  lord  in  these  complex  cases  partaking  of  the 
nature  of  either,  ruler  also  in  this  border  land,  where  these  two  regions 
of  evil  join,  and  run  so  strangely  and  unaccountably  one  into  the  other. 

Yet  while  thus  “ men  possessed  with  devils”  is  not  at  all  an  equiva- 
lent expression  for  eminently  wicked  men,  born  of  the  serpent  seed,  of 
the  devil’s  regeneration,  and  so  become  children  of  the  devil,  seeing  that 
in  such  there  is  no  cry  for  redemption,  no  desire  after  deliverance,  yet 
should  it,  I think,  always  on  the  other  hand  be  held  fast,  that  lavish  sin, 
and  especially  indulgence  in  sensual  lusts,  superinducing  as  it  would 
often  a weakness  in  the  nervous  system,  which  is  the  especial  band  be- 
tween body  and  soul,  may  have  laid  open  these  unhappy  ones  to  the 
fearful  incursions  of  the  powers  of  darkness.  They  were  greatly  guilty, 
though  not  the  guiltiest  of  men.  And  this  they  felt,  that  by  their  own 


CO  CHSTTRY  OF  THE  GADABEKES. 


133 


act  they  had  given  themselves  over  to  this  tyranny  of  the  devil,  a tyran- 
ny from  which,  as  far  as  their  horizon  reached,  they  could  see  no  hope 
of  deliverance, — that  it  was  to  themselves  they  owed  that  this  hellish 
might  was  no  longer  without  them,  no  longer  something  against  which 
they  could  shut  the  door,  which  if  it  was  resisted  would  flee  from  them ; 
but  a power  which  now  they  could  not  resist  and  which  would  not  flee. 

The  phenomena  which  the  demoniacs  of  Scripture,  especially  those 
now  before  us,  exhibit,  entirely  justify  this  view  of  the  real  presence  of 
another  will  upon  the  will  of  the  sufferer — not  merely  influences  which 
had  little  by  little  moulded  and  modified  his  will  and  brought  it  into  sub- 
jection, but  a power  which  he,  even  at  the  very  moment  that  it  is  using 
him,  feels  to  be  the  contradiction  of  his  truest  being;  which  yet  has 
forced  itself  upon  him,  and  from  which  now  he  cannot  defend  himself — 
but  is  compelled  to  speak  and  act  merely  as  the  organ  of  that  devilish 
might  which  possesses  him,  however  presently  again  his  personal  con- 
sciousness may  reassert  itself  for  a moment.*  This,  that  they  have  not 
become  indissolubly  one,  that  the  serpent  and  the  man  have  not,  as  in 
Dante’s  awful  image,  grown  together,  “ each  melted  into  other, ”f  but 
that  they  still  are  twain ; this  is,  indeed,  the  redemptive  fact  which  sur- 
vives amid  the  ruin  of  their  moral  and  spiritual  being.  Yet  does  it,  for 
the  actual  time  being,  give  the  appearance,  though  a deceptive  one,  of  a 
far  entirer  wreck  of  their  life,  that  manifests  itself  in  wicked  men,  who 
have  given  themselves  over  wholly,  without  reserve  and  without  reluc- 


* How  remarkable  in  accesses  of  delirium  tremens , which,  as  is  well  known,  is  the 
scourge  of  lavish  indulgence  in  intoxicating  drinks,  to  find  something  analogous  to  this 
double  consciousness.  A late  work  describing  the  victim  of  this,  expresses  itself  thus : 
“ In  his  most  tranquil  and  collected  moments  he  is  not  to  be  trusted ; for  the  transition 
from  that  state  to  the  greatest  violence  is  instantaneous : he  is  often  recalled  by  a 
word  to  an  apparent  state  of  reason,  but  as  quickly  his  false  impressions  return ; there 
is  sometimes  evidence , at  the  timey  of  a state  of  double  consciousness,  a condition  of 
mind  which  is  sometimes  remembered  by  the  patient  when  the  paroxysm  is  over.” 
(Bright  and  Addison,  On  the  Practice  of'  Medicine,  v.  1,  p.  262.)  And  Gfrorer,  a 
German  rationalist,  is  struck  with  a like  phenomenon  in  others.  He  says  in  his  book 
Das  Heiligthum  und  die  Wahrheit,  Stuttgart,  1838,  p.  302 : Audi  scheue  ich  mich 
trotz  alien  Aufklarern  nicht  zu  bemerken,  das  neuerdings  hier  zu  Lande  gar  seltsame 
Erscheinungen  der  Art  beobachtet  worden  sind,  und  wenn  ich  recht  unterrichtet  bin, 
so  hat  die  hochste  artzliche  Behorde  in  "Wurtemberg,  der  solche  Falle  vorgelegt 
wurden,  dahin  entschieden,  dass  es  allerdings  Krankheiten  geben  konne,  durch  welche 
zwei  Bewusstseyn  in  den  Menschen  entstehen,  so  zwar  das  der  Betroffene  iiberzeugt 
ist,  neben  seinem  Ich  noch  ein  Anderes  mit  Gewalt  eingedrungenes  in  sich  zu  haben. 
In  a note  he  adds,  Mein  Gewahrsmann  ist,  ausser  mehreren  Anderen,  ein  Mann,  den 
ich  genau  kenne,  von  kaltem  Verstande,  UDbefangen,  wahrhaftig,  ein  mathematischer 
Kopf. 

f Dante,  Inferno , Canto  25. 


134 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


tancy,  to  do  evil  with  both  hands  earnestly.  In  these  last,  by  the  very 
completeness  of  their  loss,  there  is  a unity,  a harmony,  if  one  may  dare 
to  use  the  word ; there  are  no  merest  incoherencies,  no  violent  contra 
dictions  at  every  instant  emerging  in  their  words  and  in  their  conduct ; 
they  are  at  one  with  themselves.  But  all  these  incoherencies  and  self- 
contradictions  we  trace  in  the  demoniac;  he  rushes  to  the  feet  of  Jesus, 
as  coming  to  him  for  aid,  and  then  presently  he  deprecates  his  interfer- 
ence. There  is  not  in  him  one  vast  contradiction  to  the  true  end  of  his 
being,  consistently  worked  out,  but  a thousand  lesser  contradictions,  in 
the  midst  of  which  the  true  idea  of  his  life,  not  wholly  obscured,  does 
yet  sometimes  by  fitful  glimpses  reappear.  There  is  on  his  part  an  oc- 
casional reluctancy  against  this  usurpation  by  another  of  his  spirit’s 
throne — a protest,  which  for  the  present,  indeed,  but  augments  the  con- 
fusion of  his  life — yet  w'hich  contains  in  it  the  pledge  of  a possible  free- 
dom and  order,  which  may  be  given  back  to  that  life  at  a future  time. 

There  is  one  objection  to  this  view  of  the  matter  which  may  still  be 
urged,  namely,  that  if  this  possession  is  any  thing  more  than  insanity  in 
its  different  forms,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  there  are  no  demoniacs 
now  ? that  they  have  wholly  disappeared  from  the  world  ? But  the  as- 
sumption that  there  are  none,  is  itself  one  demanding  to  be  proved.  It 
is  not  hard  to  perceive  why  there  should  be  few  by  comparison ; why 
this  form  of  spiritual  evil  should  have  lost  greatly  both  in  frequency 
and  malignity,  and  from  both  these  causes  be  far  more  difficult  to  recog- 
nize. For  in  the  first  place,  if  there  was  any  thing  that  marked  the 
period  of  the  Lord’s  coming  in  the  flesh,  and  that  immediately  succeed- 
ing, it  was  the  wreck  and  confusion  of  men’s  spiritual  life  which  was 
then,  the  sense  of  utter  disharmony,  the  hopelessness,  the  despair  which 
must  have  beset  every  man  that  thought  at  all, — this,  with  the  tendency 
to  rush  with  a frantic  eagerness  into  sensual  enjoyments  as  the  refuge 
from  despairing  thoughts.  That  whole  period  was  the  hour  and  powrer 
of  darkness — of  a darkness,  which  then  immediately  before  the  dawn  of 
a new  day,  was  the  thickest.  The  world  was  again  a chaos,  and  the 
creative  words,  “ Let  there  be  light,”  though  just  about  to  be  spoken,  as 
yet  were  not  uttered.  It  was  exactly  the  crisis  for  such  soul  maladies 
as  these,  in  which  the  spiritual  and  bodily  should  be  thus  strangely  inter- 
linked, and  it  is  nothing  wonderful  that  they  should  have  abounded  at 
that  time  ; for  the  predominance  of  certain  spiritual  maladies  at  certain 
epochs  of  the  world’s  history  which  were  specially  fitted  for  their  genera- 
tion, with  their  gradual  decline  and  disappearance  in  others  less  conge- 
nial to  them,  is  a fact  itself  admitting  no  manner  of  question.* 

* It  has  been  remarkably  traced  by  Hecker,  in  three  valuable  treatises  which  have 


COUHTEY  OF  THE  GADAEENES. 


135 


Moreover  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  might  of  hell  has  been  greatly 
broken  by  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flesh  ; and  with  this  the 
grosser  manifestations  of  its  power ; “ I beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall 
from  heaven.”  (Luke  x.  18.)  We  believe  that  his  rage  and  violence 
are  continually  hemmed  in  and  hindered  by  the  preaching  of  the  Word 
and  ministration  of  the  Sacraments.  It  were  another  thing  even  now  in 
a heathen  land,  especially  in  one  where  Satan  was  not  left  in  undisturbed 
possession,  but  wherein  the  great  crisis  of  the  conflict  between  light  and 
darkness  was  finding  place  through  the  first  incoming  there  of  the  Gospel 
of  Christ.  There  we  should  expect  very  much  to  find,  whether  or  not 
in  such  great  intensity,  yet  manifestations  analogous  to  these.  There  is 
a very  interesting  communication  from  Rhenius,  the  Lutheran  mission- 
ary,* in  which  he  gives  this  as  exactly  his  experience  in  India, — that 
among  the  native  Christians,  even  though  many  of  them  walk  not  as 
children  of  light,  yet  there  is  not  this  falling  under  Satanic  influence  in 
soul  and  body,  which  he  traced  frequently  in  the  heathen  around  him  ; 
and  he  shows  by  a remarkable  example,  and  one  in  which  he  is  himself 
the  witness  throughout,  how  the  assault  in  the  name  of  Jesus  on  the 
kingdom  of  darkness,  as  it  brings  out  all  forms  of  devilish  opposition 
into  fiercest  activity,  so  calls  out  the  endeavor  to  counterwork  the  truth 
through  men  who  have  been  made  direct  organs  of  the  devilish  will. 

It  may  well  be  a question  moreover,  if  an  apostle,  or  one  with  apos- 
tolic discernment  of  spirits,  were  to  enter  now  into  one  of  our  mad- 
houses, how  many  of  the  sufferers  there  he  might  not  recognize  as  thus 
having  more  immediately  fallen  under  the  tyranny  of  the  powers  of 
darkness.  Certainly  in  many  cases  of  mania  and  epilepsy  there  is  a 
condition  very  analogous  to  that  of  the  demoniacs,  though  the  sufferer, 
and  commonly  the  physician,  apprehend  it  differently. f Yet  this  appre- 
hension of  theirs  is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  matter  ; this  wij.l  but  be  in 
general  the  reflection  of  the  popular  notion  of  the  age  about  it.  Thus 
no  doubt  the  Jews  multiplied  quite  unnecessarily  the  numbers  of  the 
possessed,  counting  as  they  did,  among  the  cases  of  possession,  many 

been  translated  into  English  under  this  common  title,  On  the  Epidemics  of  the  Mior 
die  Ages.  In  treating  of  the  terrible  Dancing  Mania,  he  has  clearly  shown  hew 
there  are  centuries  open  to  peculiar  inflictions  of  these  kinds ; how  they  root  them- 
selves in  a peculiar  temperament  which  belongs  to  men’s  minds  in  those  ages ; and 
how  when  they  disappear,  or  become  rare  and  lose  their  intensity,  their  very  exist- 
ence is  denied  by  the  skeptical  ignorance  of  a later  age.  (pp.  8*7 — 152.) 

* It  is  of  the  date  March  27,  1818,  and  is  printed  in  Von  Meyers  Matter  fur 
hohere  Walirheit,  v.  7,  p.  199 — 208. 

f I understand  that  Esquirol,  for  I have  not  had  the  opportunity  of  myself  con- 
sulting his  works,  recognizes  demoniacs  now.  There  could  not^be  a higher  authority. 


136 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


lower  forms  of  disharmony  In  the  inner  life ; so  too  I should  believe  it 
was  in  the  early  Church,  and  many  then  who  had  not  fallen  under  this 
immediate  tyranny  of  the  devil,  may  yet  have  traced  up  their  sufferings 
directly  to  him.  Now,  however,  the  popular  feeling  which  the  unhappy 
man  brings  with  him  into  his  forlorn  state  sets  the  opposite  way,  and  in 
agreement  with  this  is  the  language  which  he  uses.  But  the  case 
which  is  now  before  us  is  one  in  which  no  question  can  exist,  since  the 
great  Physician  himself  treats  and  declares  it  as  one  of  a veritable  pos- 
session. 

There  is  something  very  striking  in  the  connection  in  which  this  mir- 
acle stands  with  that  other  which  went  immediately  before.  Our  Lord 
has  just  shown  himself  as  the  pacifier  of  the  tumults  and  the  discords 
in  the  outward  world;  he  has  spoken  peace  to  the  winds  and  to  the 
waves,  and  hushed  with  a word  the  elemental  war.  But  there  is  some- 
thing wilder  and  more  fearful  than  the  winds  and  the  waves  in  their 
fiercest  moods — even  the  spirit  of  man,  when  it  has  broken  loose  from 
all  restraints  and  yielded  itself  to  be  the  organ  not  of  God,  but  of  him 
who  brings  uttermost  confusion  wheresoever  his  dominion  reaches.  And 
Christ  will  do  here  a yet  mightier  work  than  that  which  he  accomplished 
there ; he  will  prove  himself  here  also  the  Prince  of  Peace,  the  bringer 
back  of  the  lost  harmony ; he  will  speak,  and  at  his  potent  word  this 
madder  strife,  this  blinder  rage  which  is  in  the  heart  of  man,  will  allay 
itself ; and  here  also  there  shall  be  a great  calm. 

In  seeking  to  combine  the  accounts  given  us  of  this  memorable  heal- 
ing, this  difficulty  meets  us  at  the  outset,' * namely,  that  St.  Matthew 

* There  is  another  difficulty  also,  namely,  that  St.  Matthew  should  lay  the  scene 
of  the  miracle  in  the  country  of  the  Gergesenes,  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  in  that  of  the 
Gadarenes.  But  the  MSS.  in  all  three  Evangelists  vary  in  their  reading  between 
Tadaprjvtiv,  Tepaorjvtiv,  and  Tepyecr/vtiv,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  there  is  any 
even  apparent  contradiction  here.  Lachmann,  for  instance,  finds  none,  who,  certainly 
not  with  any  motive  of  excluding  such,  reads  Tepacrjvtiv  throughout,  which  was  the 
reading  Origen  found  in  most  MSS.  of  his  day.  Fritschze,  in  like  manner,  reads 
every  where  Tadapjjvtiv,  which  Winer  also  prefers.  ( Real  IVorterbuch,  s.  v.  Gadara.) 
This  reading,  Origen  says,  was  not  in  many  MSS.  of  his  time ; yet  there  seems  hardly 
a doubt  that  it  is  the  right  one  ; for  Gadara,  the  capital  city  of  Persea,  lay  s.  e.  of  the 
southern  point  of  Gennesareth,  at  a distance  of  not  more  than  60  stadia  from  Tiberias, 
its  country  being  called  Tadaplrig.  But  Gerasa  lay  on  the  extreme  eastern  limit  of 
Perasa,  so  as  sometimes  to  be  numbered  among  the  cities  of  Arabia,  and  much  too  far 
distant  to  give  its  name  to  any  district  on  the  borders  of  the  lake.  Origen,  therefore, 
ou  topographic  motives,  proposes  Tepyeaa : but  no  evidence  seems  adducible,  except 
his  assertion,  to  prove  the  existence  of  any  city  bearing  that  name  in  the  neighborhood 
$f  the  lake.  Josephus#never  makes  mention  of  it.  If  there  did  lie  any  difference  in 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


137 


speaks  of  two  demoniacs,  while  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  speak  only  of 
one.  Many  explanations  of  this  have  been  offered,  as  that  one  was  a 
more  notable  person  in  the  country  than  the  other  ; or  that  one  was  so 
much  more  savage  as  to  cause  the  other,  by  most  persons,  hardly  to  be 
taken  note  of;  which  is  that  of  Maldonatus.*  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  cause,  it  is,  I think,  evident,  that  one  did  fall  into  the  back- 
ground ; and,  therefore,  following  the  more  detailed  account  of  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke,  I shall  speak  in  the  main  as  they  do,  of  the  one  demoniac 
who  met  the  Lord  as  he  came  out  of  the  ship  ; not  in  the  least  as  though 
the  other  was  not  present : but  the  accounts  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke, 
where  there  appears  but  one,  being  those  wrhich,  as  the  fullest,  I desire 
mainly  to  follow,  it  would  be  full  of  continual  embarrassments  to  use 
any  other  language. 

The  picture  of  the  miserable  man  is  fearful ; and  in  drawing  it, 
each  Evangelist  has  some  touches  which  are  peculiarly  his  own ; but 
St.  Mark’s  is  the  most  eminently  graphic  of  all,  adding  as  it  does  many 
strokes  which  wonderfully  heighten. the  terribleness  of  the  man’s  condi- 
tion, and  so  also  magnify  the  glory  of  his  cure.  The  man  had  his 
dwelling  among  the  tombs,  that  is,  in  unclean  places,  unclean  because 
of  the  dead  men’s  bones  which  were  there.  To  those  who  did  not  on 
this  account  shun  them,  these  tombs  of  the  Jews  would  afford  ample 
shelter,  being  either  natural  caves,  or  recesses  hewn  by  art  out  of  the 
rock,  often  so  large  as  to  be  supported  with  columns,  and  with  cells 
upon  their  sides  for  the  reception  of  the  dead.f  Being,  too,  without  the 
cities,  and  oftentimes  in  remote  and  solitary  places,  they  wrould  attract 
those  wh:>  sought  ' > flee  from  all  fellowship  of  their  kind.J  This  man 

the  original  readings,  it  would  probably  be  explained  thus,  that  the  limits  of  the 
territory,  which  might  be  said  to  belong  to  each  city,  were  not  very  accurately  deter- 
mined, so  that  one  Evangelist  called  it  the  country  of  one  city,  and  another  of  another. 

* Augustine  {Be  Conn.  Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  24) : Intelligas  unum  eorum  fuisse  personse 
alicujus  clarioris  et  famosioris,  quern  regio  ilia  maxima  dolebat.  So  Theophylact, 
that  one  was  imargioTzpop,  and  Grotius.  See  another  solution  in  Lightfoot’s  Exer- 
cit.  on  St.  Mark , (in  loc.)  It  remained  for  a modern  interpreter,  Ammon,  in  his 
Biblische  ! Theologie , to  conjecture  that  the  two  were  the  madman  and  his  keeper.  It 
is  remarkable  that  in  the  same  way  St.  Matthew  makes  mention  of  two  blind  men, 
(xx.  30,)  where  the  others  make  mention  only  of  one.  (Mark  x.  46  ; Luke  xviii.  35.) 

f Burckhardt  and  other  travellers  mention  many  such  tombs  on  the  further  side 
of  the  lake,  and  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  spot  where  Gadara  stood,  as 
existing  to  this  present  day. 

% Havernick,  on  Daniel  iv.  33,  quotes  JEtius,  Be  Melancholid,  1.  3,  c.  8.;  where 
of  the  melancholy-mad  he  says,  oi  ir^emvg  iv  ckotelvol f tottoiq  %atpovoi  SiarpifUeiv,  nal 
iv  pvf/paoi,  Kal  b ipjj/ioig.  And  Warburton  (in  The  Crescent  and  the  Cross,  v.  2,  p.  352) 
remarkably  illustrates  this  account : On  descending  from  these  heights  [those  of  Leba- 

18 


138 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


was  possessed  of  that  extraordinary  muscular  strength  which  maniacs 
so  often  put  forth,  (compare  Acts  xix.  16,)  and  thus  all  efforts  to  bind 
and  restrain  him,  (and  such  had  often  been  repeated,)  had  proved  inef- 
fectual. (Mark  v.  6.)  St.  Matthew  alone  relates  how  he  had  made 
the  way  impassable  for  travellers ; St.  Luke  alone  that  he  was  without 
clothing,*  although  this  is  involved  in  St.  Mark’s  account,  who  tells  us 
that  after  he  was  healed  he  was  found  “ clothed , and  in  his  right  mind” 
sitting  at  Jesus’  feet.  Yet  with  all  this,  he  was  not  so  utterly  lost,  but 
that  there  evermore  woke  up  in  him  a sense  of  his  misery,  and  of  the 
terrible  bondage  under  which  he  had  come,  although  this  could  express 
itself  only  in  his  cries,  and  in  a blind  rage  against  himself,  out  of  which 
he  wounded  and  cut  himself  with  stones, f recognizing  no  doubt  his  own 
evil  will  as  that  which  had  given  entrance  to  this  terrible  host  of  Satanic 
influences  into  his  inmost  being.]; 

From  such  a one  as  this  did  the  Lord  receive  his  first  greeting  on 
those  shores  which  now,  probably  for  the  first  time,  his  feet  were  treading. 
This  man  with  his  companion  starting  from  the  tombs,  which  were  their 
ordinary  dwelling-place,  rushed  down  to  encounter,  it  may  have  been 
with  hostile  violence,  the  intruders  that  had  dared  to  set  foot  on  their  do- 
main. Or  it  may  have  been  that  they  were  at  once  drawn  to  Christ  by 
the  secret  instinctive  feeling  that  he  wras  their  helper,  and  driven  from 
him  by  the  sense  of  the  awful  gulf  that  divided  them  from  him,  the  Holy 
One  of  God.  At  any  rate,  if  it  was  with  purposes  of  violence,  ere  the 
man  reached  him  his  mind  was  changed : “/or  he  had  commanded  the 

non],  I found  myself  in  a cemetery,  whose  sculptured  turbans  showed  me  that  the 
neighboring  village  was  Moslem.  The  silence  of  night  was  now  broken  by  fierce  yells 
and  bowlings,  which  I discovered  proceeded  from  a naked  maniac,  who  was  fighting 
with  some  wild  dogs  for  a bone.  The  moment  he  perceived  me,  he  left  his  canine 
comrades,  and  bounding  along  with  rapid  strides,  seized  my  horse’s  bridle,  and  almost 
forced  him  backward  over  the  cliff,  by  the  grip  he  held  of  the  powerful  Mameluke  bit.” 
* Pritchard  ( On  Insanity,  p.  26)  quotes  from  an  Italian  physician’s  description  of 
raving  madness  or  mania : “ A striking  and  characteristic  circumstance  is  the  propen- 
sity to  go  quite  naked.  The  patient  tears  his  clothes  to  tatters,”  and  presently,  in 
exact  accordance  with  the  description  we  have  here:  “ Notwithstanding  his  constant 
exertion  of  mind  and  body,  the  muscular  strength  of  the  patient  seems  daily  to 
increase.  He  is  able  to  break  the  strongest  bonds,  and  even  chains.” 

f Pritchard  {On  Insanity,  p.  113)  describing  a case  of  raving  mania : — “ He  habi- 
tually wounded  his  hands,  wrists,  and  arms,  with  needles  and  pins ; . . . .the  blood 
sometimes  flowed  copiously,  dropping  from  his  elbows  when  his  arms  were  bare.” 

\ A fearful  commentary  on  the  words  of  St.  Peter,  who  describes  such  as  this 
man  as  being  tcaTaSwaoTEvoyevovg  vtvo  tov  diafiohov.  (Acts  x.  38.)  An  apocryphal 
allusion  to  this  miracle  adds  one  circumstance  more,  that  they  gnawed  their  own 
flesh:  aapKo^ayovvrag  rtiv  Idiuv  pslcjv.  (Thilo’s  Cod.  Apocryph.,  v.  1,  p.  808.) 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


139 


unclean  spirit  to  come  out  of  the  man,”*  (Luke  viii.  29,)  and  the  unclean 
spirit  had  recognized  one  that  had  a right  to  command,  with  whom  force 
would  avail  nothing ; and,  like  others  on  similar  occasions,  sought  by  a 
strong  adjuration  to  avert  his  coming  doom.  He  “ cried  with  a loud 
voice , What  have  I to  do  with  thee , Jesus , thou  Son  of  the  most  high 
God?”  that  is,  “What  have  we  in  common?  why  interferest  thou  with 
us?  why  wilt  thou  not  let  us  alone?  I adjure  thee  by  God  that  thou  tor- 
ment me  not”  \ Herein  the  true  devilish  spirit  speaks  out,  which  counts 
it  a torment  not  to  be  suffered  to  torment  others,  and  an  injury  done  to 
itself,  when  it  is  no  more  permitted  to  be  injurious  to  others.  In  St. 
Matthew  they  say,  “ Art  thou  come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time?” 
in  which  last  words,  “ before  the  time”  is  the  confession  upon  their  part 
of  a time  coming,  a time,  too,  not  to  be  averted,  when  there  shall  be  an 
entire  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  light  over  that  of  darkness,  and  when 
all  which  belong  unto  the  latter  shall  be  shut  up  in  the  abyss,  (Rev.  xx. 
10 ;)  when  all  power  of  harming  shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and 
they  shall  acquiesce  in  their  inevitable  doom.  And  all  Scripture  agrees 
with  this,  that  the  judgment  of  the  angels  is  yet  to  come,  (1  Cor.  vi.  3 ;) 
they  are  “ reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day (Jude  6 ;)  and  what  the  unclean  spirits  depre- 
cate here,  is  the  bringing  in,  by  anticipation,  of  that  final  doom. 

But  this  is  here  noticeable,  that  the  first  bidding  of  Christ  is  not 
immediately  obeyed ; — that  the  evil  spirits  remonstrate,  and  do  not  at 
once  quit  their  hold.  No  doubt  the  Lord  could  have  forced  them  to  do 
so  had  he  willed,  but  the  man  might  have  perished  in  the  process.  (Cf. 
Mark  ix.  24.)  Even  that  first  bidding  had  brought  on  a terrible  parox- 
ysm. It  was  then  of  Christ’s  own  will,  of  the  Physician’s,  wise  and  ten- 
der as  he  was  strong,  to  proceed  step  by  step.  And,  first,  he  demands 

* In  the  same  way  Mark  v.  8,  should  be  taken  parenthetically,  and  as  a plusqu 
perfect — “ For  he  had  said  unto  him,  Come  out  of  the  man,  thou  unclean  spirit.” 

\ Baur  (. Apollonius  von  Tyana  und  Christus,  p.  145)  observes  the  remarkable 
resemblance  which  the  narrative  in  the  Life  of  Apollonius,  (1. 4,  c.  25,)  of  the  demon 
which  sought  vainly  to  avert : ts  doom,  and  at  length  yielded  to  the  threatening  words 
of  Apollonius,  and  abandoned  the  young  man  of  Corcyra,  has  with  the  present.  Apol- 
lonius exercises  there  the  same  tormenting,  and  by  the  demon  irresistible,  might. 
A resemblance  may  be  traced  even  in  the  very  words.  As  the  possessed  exclaims 
here,  T i eyol  nal  col,  ’hjcov,  vie  tov  Qeov  tov  viplcrov  ; deoyai  cov,  yrj  ye  (3acav'icijg, 
so  there  of  the  Lamia  it  is  said,  danpvovTi  e6nei  to  (j)dcya,  nal  edelro  yrj  (3aoavi£eiv 
avro,  yr)6£  avaytca^eiv  oyoloyelv,  6,  n elrj.  He  does  not  doubt  that  that  narrative  was 
fashioned  in  imitation  of  this.  The  expulsion  of  a demon  recorded  c.  20  of  the  same 
book,  has  more  remarkable  points  of  resemblance ; and  he  might  have  referred  to 
another  expulsion,  (1.  3,  c.  38,)  in  which  many  features  of  the  father’s  intercession  for 
his  lunatic  son,  (Matt,  xvii.,)  and  of  the  Syrophcenician  mother  for  her  absent  daughter, 
appear  curiously  blended  together. 


140 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


of  him  his  name, — some  say  for  magnifying  the  greatness  of  the  deliv- 
erance and  the  Deliverer,  by  showing,  through  the  answer,  the  power 
and  strength  of  the  foe  that  was  overcome.  But,  most  probably,  the 
question  was  directed  to  the  man,  and  was  for  the  purpose  of  calming 
him,  by  bringing  him  to  recollection,  to  the  consciousnes  of  his  perso- 
nality, of  which  a man’s  name  is  the  outward  expression, — that  he  was 
a person  who  had  once  been  apart  from,  and  was  not  now  inextricably 
intertwined  with  those  spiritual  wickednesses  now  lording  over  him. 
The  question  might  thus  have  been  intended  to  facilitate  his  cure.*  But 
if  so  meant,  either  the  evil  spirit  snatches  at  the  answer  and  replies  for 
himself,  or  the  unhappy  man,  instead  of  recurring  to  his  true  name,  that 
which  should  remind  him  of  what  he  was  before  he  fell  under  the  do- 
minion of  these  alien  powers,  in  this  reply,  “My  name  is  Legion , for  we 
are  many” — a reply  in  which  truth  and  error  are  fearfully  blended, — 
declares  his  sense  of  the  utter  ruin  of  his  whole  moral  and  spiritual 
being.  Not  on  one  side  only,  but  on  every  side,  the  walls  of  his  spirit 
have  been  broken  down ; and  he  is  laid  open  to  all  the  incursions  of 
evil,  torn  asunder  in  infinite  ways,  now  under  one  hostile  and  hated 
power,  now  under  another.  The  destruction  is  complete ; they  who  rule 
over  him  are  “ lords  many.”  He  can  find  no  other  way  to  express  his 
state  than  in  an  image  drawn  from  the  reminiscences  of  his  former  life. 
He  had  seen  the  thick  and  serried  ranks  of  a Roman  legion,  that  fearful 
instrument  of  oppression,  that  sign  of  terror  and  fear  to  the  conquered 
nations,  and  before  which  the  Jew  more  especially  quailed.  Even  such, 
at  once  one  and  many,  cruel  and  inexorable  and  strong,  were  the  powers 
that  were  tyrannizing  over  him.j-  When  it  is  said  of  Mary  Magdalene, 
that  out  of  her  had  gone  seven  devils,  (Luke  viii.  2,)  something  of  the 
same  truth  is  expressed, — that  her  spiritual  life  was  laid  waste,  not  on 
one  side  only,  but  on  many.  (Cf.  Matt.  xii.  45.) 

And  then  again,  with  that  interchange  of  persons  which  was  con- 
tinually going  forward,  that  quick  shifting,  so  to  speak,  of  the  polarity, 
so  that  at  one  moment  the  human  consciousness  became  the  positive,  at 
another  the  negative  pole,  the  unclean  spirit,  or  rather  the  man,  become 
now  his  organ,  speaks  out  anew,  entreating  not  to  be  sent  into  the 
abyss, J (Luke  viii.  31,)  or  clothing  his  petition  in  the  form  of  a notion 

* It  is  well  known  that  in  cases  of  somnambulism,  which  must  be  regarded  as  a 
disorder,  though  in  one  of  the  mildest  forms,  of  the  spiritual  life,  the  sleep-walker, 
when  every  thing  else  fails,  may  often  be  awakened  and  recalled  to  a healthy  state 
of  consciousness  through  being  addressed  by  his  name.  (Schubert’s  KranTdieiten 
und  Storungen  der  menschl.  Seele , p.  368.) 

f See  Olshausen’s  Commentary  (in  loc.) 

\ E lg  rrjv  afivocrov, — unhappily  translated  in  our  version,  “ into  the  deep?  so  leaving 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


141 


which  belonged  to  the  man  whom  he  possessed,  not  to  be  sent  away  out 
of  the  country.  (Mark  v.  8.)  The  request  is  in  each  case  the  same, 
for,  according  to  Jewish  notions,  certain  countries  being  assigned  to  evil 
as  well  as  good  spirits,  and  they  being  unable  to  overpass  their  limits, 
to  be  sent  out  of  the  assigned  country,  no  other  being  open  to  them, 
would  amount  to  the  same  thing  as  being  sent  into  the  abyss,  since  that 
alone  would  remain  for  them.  This  request  is  in  fact  a repetition  of 
their  prayer  that  they  should  not  be  tormented  before  the  time. 

Hereupon  follows  a circumstance  that  has  ever  proved  one  of  the 
chiefest  stumbling-blocks  which  men  have  found  in  the  Evangelical  his 
tory.  The  devils,  if  they  must  leave  their  more  welcome  habitation, 
the  heart  of  man,  if  indeed  the  Stronger  is  come,  binding  the  strong 
and  spoiling  his  goods,  taking  his  thralls  out  of  his  power,  yet  entreat, 
in  their  inextinguishable  desire  of  harming,  that  they  may  be  allowed  to 
enter  into  the  swine,  of  which  a large  herd, — St.  Mark,  with  his  usual 
punctuality,  notes  that  they  were  “ about  two  thousand” — were  feeding 
oil  the  neighboring  cliffs.  But  to  the  evil  all  things  turn  to  harm. 
God’s  saints  and  servants  appear  not  to  be  heard ; and  the  very  refusal 
of  their  requests  is  to  them  a blessing.  (2  Cor.  xii.  7.)  The  wicked, 
Satan  (Job  i.  11)  and  his  ministers  and  servants,  are  sometimes  heard, 
and  the  very  granting  of  their  petitions  issues  in  their  greater  confusion 
and  loss.*  So  was  it  now : these  evil  spirits  had  their  prayers  heard ; 
but  only  to  their  ruin.  They  are  allowed  to  enter  into  the  swine  ;f  but 
the  destruction  of  the  whole  herd  follows ; and  that  which  they  dreaded 
would  seem  to  have  come  upon  them ; no  longer  finding  organs  in  which 
or  through  which  to  work,  they  are  driven  perforce  to  the  abysmal  deep, 
which  they  most  would  have  shunned. 


room  for  a confusion  with  what  follows,  where  the  swine  under  their  influence  rush 
down  into  the  sea.  "Wiclif’s  was  better,  “ Thei  preieden  hym  that  he  schulde  not 
comande  hem,  that  they  schulden  go  in  to  hell.”  "With  a like  liability  to  confusion, 
it  is  translated  “ the  deep,”  Rom.  x.  7,  where  also  “ hell,”  meaning  by  that  word 
Hades,  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  including  the  place  for  the  gathering  of  the 
departed  as  well  as  the  <j>vX any,  the  abode  of  evil  spirits,  would  have  been  better. 
Besides  these  two  places,  the  word  only  occurs  in  Revelations,  but  there  several 
times,  as  ix.  1,  2,  11 ; xi.  7 ; xvii.  8 ; xx  1,  3,  where  it  plainly  means  only  the  last, 
the  raprapog  (2  Pet.  ii.  4)  ==  yeevva.  The  word  is  properly  an  adjective  from  (3vaaog, 
Ionic  for  ftvdog.  So  Euripides  ( Phoenissce , v.  1632) : raprapov  ufivcoa  xaapara. 

* See  Augustine’s  excellent  words  in  Ep.  Joh.  Tract  6,  7,  8. 

f The  matter  is  so  plain  as  hardly  to  be  worth  noticing,  that  Christ  did  not  send 
the  devils  into  the  swine ; he  drove  them  out  from  the  men  ; all  beyond  was  merely 
permissive.  Thus  Augustine : Expulsa  et  in  porcos  permissa  deemonia ; and  Aquinas : 
Quod  autem  porci  in  mare  praecipitati  sunt,  non  fuit  operatio  divini  miraculi,  sed 
oDeratio  daemonum  e permissione  diving. 


142 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


Now  the  first  difficulty,  the  destruction  of  the  swine,  one  of  the  same 
order  as  that  of  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree  through  Christ’s  word, 
(Matt.  xxi.  19,)  is  hardly  worth  noticing.  A man  is  of  more  value 
than  many  swine.  And  if  this  granting  of  the  request  of  the  evil 
spirits  helped  in  any  way  the  cure  of  the  man,  caused  them  to  resign 
their  hold  on  him  more  easily,  mitigated  the  paroxvsm  of  their  going 
forth,  (cf.  Mark  ix.  26,)  this  would  have  been  motive  enough.  Or  still 
more  probably,  it  may  have  been  necessary  for  the  permanent  healing 
of  the  man  that  he  should  have  an  outward  evidence  and  testimony  that 
the  hellish  powers  which  held  him  in  bondage  had  quitted  him.  He 
wanted  his  deliverance  sealed  and  realized  to  him  in  the  open  destruction 
of  his  enemies ; not  else  would  he  have  been  persuaded  of  the  truth  of 
that  deliverance,  and  that  Christ  had  indeed  and  for  ever  set  him  free : 
as  the  children  of  Israel,  coming  out  of  Egypt,  must  see  the  dead  bodies 
of  their  oppressors  on  the  shore,  ere  they  could  indeed  believe  that  these 
never  again  should  bring  them  back  into  their  old  bondage. 

In  regard,  too,  of  the  loss  incurred  by  the  owners  of  those  swine, 
there  is  no  more  reason  wThy  this  should  have  been  laid  hold  of  and  made 
an  object  of  cavil  than  every  murrain  that  causes  cattle  to  die,  or  inun- 
dation that  destroys  the  fruits  of  the  field,  or  other  natural  calamity  with 
which  God  chastens  his  children,  punishes,  or  seeks  to  make  contrite  the 
hearts  of  his  enemies.  For  oftentimes  the  taking  away  by  God  is  in  a 
higher  sense  a giving ; it  is  the  taking  away  of  the  meaner  thing,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  receptive  of  the  higher.  Thus  might  it  well  have 
been  intended  here,  however  the  sin  of  these  Gardarenes  hindered  Christ’s 
gracious  design.  If  these  herds  belonged  to  Jewish  owners,  and  we  know 
from  Josephus,  that  there  were  great  multitudes  of  hellenizing  Jews  just 
in  these  parts,  there  may  have  been  in  this  loss  a punishment  meant  for 
them  who  from  motives  of  gain  showed  themselves  despisers  of  Moses’ 
law.  Yet  a great  part  of  the  population  of  the  Decapolis  was  certainly 
Gentile ; Josephus  calls  Gadara  itself  a Greek  city.* 

But  again,  it  seems  strange  that  the  unclean  spirits  ask  permission  to 
enter  into  the  swine,  yet  no  sooner  have  they  done  so  than  they  defeat 
their  own  purpose,  destroying  that  animal  life,  from  which  if  they  be  al- 
together driven,  they  have  already  confessed  they  will  be  obliged  to  be- 
take them  to  the  more  detested  place  of  their  punishment.  But  it  is  no- 
where said  that  they  drove  the  swine  down  the  steep  place  into  the  sea. 
It  is  just  as  easy,  and  much  more  natural,  to  understand  that  against 
their  will  the  swine,  when  they  found  themselves  seized  by  this  new  and 
strange  power,  rushed  themselves  in  wild  and  panic  fear  to  their  destruc- 
tion,— the  first  leaping  down  the  cliffs,  and  the  rest  blindly  following, 


* Antt.,  17.  11,4. 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  OADAEENES. 


143 


And  be  it  that  the  creatures  thus  rushed  themselves  to  their  own  destruc- 
tion, or  were  impelled  by  the  foul  spirits,  does  there  not  here  in  either  case 
come  out  the  very  essence  of  evil  in  its  truest  manifestation,  that  it  is 
evermore  outwitted  and  defeats  itself,  being  as  inevitably  scourged  in  the 
granting  of  its  requests  as  in  their  refusal ; that  it  is  stupid,  blind,  self 
contradicting,  and  suicidal ; that  it  can  only  destroy,  and  will  rather  in- 
volve itself  in  the  common  ruin  than  not  destroy  ? 

Moreover  in  their  blind  hatred  against  the  Lord  they  may  have  been 
content  to  bring  this  additional  harm,  whatsoever  it  was,  upon  themselves, 
in  the  hopes  that  by  this  act  they  would  bring  upon  him  the  ill-will,  as 
was  actually  the  case,  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  region,  and  so  limit  and 
hinder  his  blessed  work  among  them.  And  this  no  doubt  they  did,  for 
it  was  fear  of  further  losses,  and  alienation  from  Christ  on  account  of 
that  which  through  his  presence  had  already  befallen  them,  which  was 
the  motive  for  their  urging  him  to  leave  their  country. 

But  the  question  offering  more  real  matter  for  consideration  is  the 
entering  in  of  the  devils  into  the  swine, — the  working  of  the  spiritual  life 
on  the  bestial,  which  seems  altogether  irreceptive  of  it,  and  not  to  possess 
the  organs  through  which  it  could  operate.  I put  aside  of  course  here, 
as  both  in  themselves  merely  ridiculous,  and  irreconcilable  with  the 
documents  as  they  lie  before  us,  the  solutions  of  Paulus  and  his  compeers, 
that  the  demoniac,  in  the  parting  paroxysm  of  his  madness,  hunted  the 
creatures  over  the  precipices  into  the  lake,  or  that  while  the  swineherds 
were  drawn  by  curiosity  to  watch  the  encounter  between  Christ  and  the 
demoniac,  or  had  gone  to  warn  him  of  the  danger  of  meeting  the  mad- 
man, the  untended  herd  fell  a fighting,  and  so  tumbled  headlong  over 
the  crags. 

Whatever  difficulty  is  here,  it  certainly  is  not  so  to  be  evaded ; and 
their  perplexity  at  any  rate  claims  to  be  respectfully  treated,  who  find 
it  hard  to  reconcile  this  incident  with  what  else  they  have  been 
taught  to  hold  fast  as  most  precious  concerning  the  specific  difference 
between  man  and  the  whole  order  of  spiritual  existences  on  the  one  side, 
and  the  animal  creation  on  the  other.  This  difficulty,  however,  proceeds 
on  the  assumption  that  that  lower  world  is  wholly  shut  up  in  itself,  and 
incapable  of  receiving  impressions  from  that  which  is  above  it ; wdiile 
certainly  all  deeper  investigations  would  lead  to  an  opposite  conclusion, 
— not  to  the  breaking  down  the  boundaries  between  the  two  worlds,  but 
to  the  showing  in  what  wonderful  ways  the  lower  is  subject  to  the  im- 
pressions of  the  higher,  both  for  good  and  for  evil.*  Nor  does  this  work- 

* Kieser,  certainly  a man  who  would  not  go  out  of  his  way  that  he  might  bring  his 
theory  into  harmony  with  Scripture  facte,  distinctly  recognizes,  (in  his  Tellurismm,  v. 


144 


THE  DEMONIACS  IN  THE 


ing  of  the  spiritual  on  the  physical  life  stand  isolated  in  this  single  pas 
sage  of  Scripture,  but  we  are  throughout  taught  the  same  lesson.  Com 
pare  Gen.  iii.  17  with  Rom.  viii.  18. 

All  three  Evangelists  record  the  entreaty  of  the  Gardarenes,  so  unlike 
that  which  the  Samaritans  (John  iv.  40)  made  to  our  Lord,  “ that  he 
would  depart  out  of  their  coasts ,” — an  entreaty  which  surely  had  not,  as 
Jerome  and  others  suppose,  its  roots  in  their  humility,  was  in  no  respect 
a parallel  to  St.  Peter’s,  “ Depart  from  me,  for  I am  a sinful  man,” 
(Luke  v.  8 ;)  but,  as  already  observed,  was  provoked  by  the  injury  which 
already  from  his  brief  presence  among  them,  had  ensued  to  their  world- 
ly possessions  , as  perhaps  by  the  greater  losses  which  yet  they  feared 
This  was  their  trial ; it  was  now  to  be  seen  whether  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  the  first  thing  in  their  esteem ; whether  they  would  hold  all 
else  as  cheap  by  comparison : so  that  in  this  aspect  the  destruction  of  the 
swine  had  in  regard  of  them  an  ethical  aim.  It  was  their  trial,  for  the 
discovering  of  what  temper  they  were ; and  under  this  trial  they  failed. 
It  was  nothing  to  them  that  a man,  probably  a fellow-citizen,  was  deliv- 
ered from  that  terrible  bondage,  that  they  saw  him  “ sitting  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus f receiving  instruction  from  • him,  (Luke  x.  39;  Acts  xxii.  3,) 
“ clothed  and  in  his  right  mindj*  The  breach  that  was  made  in  their 
worldly  prosperity  alone  occupied  their  thoughts  : for  spiritual  blessings 
that  were  brought  near  to  them  they  cared  nothing,  and  “ they  were 
afraidf  they  knew  not  what  next  might  follow.  They  only  knew  that 
the  presence  of  God’s  Holy  One  was  intolerable  to  them  while  they  re- 

2,  p.  72,)  with  reference  to  this  present  miracle,  the  possibility  of  the  passing  over  of 
demoniac  conditions  upon  others,  and  even  upon  animals  (die  Moglickheit  eines  TTeber- 
gangs  damonischer  Zustande  auf  Andere,  und  selbst  auf  Thiere).  How  remarkable  in 
this  respect  are  well-authenticated  cases  of  clairvoyance,  in  which  the  horse  is  evidently 
by  its  terror  and  extreme  agitation  and  utter  refusal  to  advance,  a partaker  of  the  vision 
of  its  rider.  (See  Passavant’s  Unterss.  ub  d.  Hellsehen,  p.  316.)  And  indeed  in  our 
common  life  the  horse,  and  the  dog  no  less,  are  eminently  receptive  of  the  spiritual  con- 
ditions of  their  appointed  lord  and  master,  Man.  With  what  electric  swiftness  does  the 
courage  or  fear  of  the  rider  pass  into  the  horse ; and  so  to  the  gladness  or  depression 
of  its  master  is  almost  instantaneously  reflected  and  reproduced  in  his  faithful  dog.  It 
is  true  that  we  should  expect,  as  we  should  find,  far  less  of  this  in  the  grosser  nature 
of  the  swine  than  in  those  creatures  of  nobler  races.  Yet  the  very  fierceness  and  gross- 
ness of  these  animals  may  have  been  exactly  that  which  best  fitted  them  for  receiving 
such  impulses  from  the  lower  world  as  those  under  which  they  perished. 

* Augustine  ( Qucest . Evang.,  1.  2,  qu.  13):  Significat  multitudinem  vetustd  su& 
vM  delectatam,  honorare  quidem  sed  nolle  pati  Christianam  legem,  dum  dicunt  quod 
earn  implere  non  possint,  admirantes  tamen  fidelem  populum  a pristina  perdita  con- 
versatione  sanatum.  The  name  Gergeseni  has  been  often  since  given  to  those  who 
will  not  endure  sound  doctrine.  (Erasmi  Adagia,  p.  313.) 


COUNTRY  OF  THE  GADARENES. 


145 


mained  in  their  sins,  and  to  them,  so  remaining,  could  only  bring  mis- 
chiefs, of  which  they  had  had  the  first  experience  already.  And  having 
no  desire  to  be  delivered  from  their  sins,  they  “ besought  him  to  depart 
from  them , for  they  were  taken  with  great  fear”  And  their  prayer  also 
was  heard ; he  did  depart ; he  took  them  at  their  word ; he  let  them 
alone.*  (Cf.  Exod.  x.  28,  29.) 

But  the  healed  man  would  fain  accompany  his  healer  : and  as  Christ 
was  stepping  into  the  ship  to  return,  entreated  that  he  might  be  allowed 
to  bear  him  company.  Was  it  that  he  feared,  as  Theophylact  supposes, 
lest  in  the  absence  of  his  deliverer  the  powers  of  hell  should  regain  their 
dominion  over  him,  and  only  felt  safe  in  immediate  nearness  to  him1? — 
or  merely  that  out  of  the  depth  of  his  gratitude  he  desired  henceforth  to 
be  a follower  of  him  to  whom  he  owed  this  mighty  benefit  ? But  what- 
ever was  his  motive  the  Lord  had  other  purposes  with  him  : though  he 
was  himself  leaving  them  who  were  as  yet  unfitted  to  welcome  him,  he 
would  not  leave  himself  without  a witness  among  them.  This  healed 
man  should  be  a standing  monument  of  his  grace  and  power, — that  he 
would  have  healed  them,  and  was  willing  to  heal  them  still,  of  all  the 
diseases  of  their  souls : “ Go  home  to  thy  friends , and  tell  them  how  great 
things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  thee , and  hath  had  compassion  on  thee.” f 
And  the  man  did  so,  and  not  without  effect : “ He  departed , and  began 
to  publish  in  Decapolis  how  great  things  Jesus  had  done  for  him  ; and  all 
men  did  marvel 

* Augustine  ( Enarr . in  Ps.  cxxxvi.  3)  has  a noble  passage  on  what  the  world 
calls  prosperity ; which  when  Christ  interrupts,  then  the  world  counts  that  he  has 
brought  nothing  good,  and  would  fain  have  him  depart  from  it,  if  it  might : Yides 
enim  si  theatra  et  amphitheatra  et  circi  starent  incolumes;  si  nihil  caderet  de  Baby- 
lonia, si  ubertas  esset  circumfluentium  voluptatum  hominibus  cantaturis  et  saltaturis 
ad  turpia  cantica,  si  libido  scortantium  et  meretricantium  haberet  quietem  et  securi- 
tatem,  si  non  timeret  famem  in  domo  sua  qui'  clamat  ut  pantomimi  vestiantur,  si 
haec  omnia  sine  labe,  sine  perturbatione  aliqua  fluerent,  et  esset  securitas  magna  nu- 
garum,  felicia  essent  tempora,  et  magnam  felicitatem  rebus  humanis  Christus  adtu- 
lisset.  Quia  vero  cseduntur  iniquitates,  ut  exstirpata  cupiditate  plantetur  caritas 
Jerusalem,  quia  miscentur  amaritudines  vitae  temporali,  ut  aeterna  desideretur,  quia 
erudiuntur  in  flagellis  homines,  paternam  accipientes  disciplinam,  ne  judiciaram  in- 
veniant  sententiam  ; nihil  boni  adtulit  Christus,  et  labores  adtulit  Christus. 

f Erasmus  seems  to  me  to  be  right  when  he  connects  oca,  not  alone  with 
TrETrotrjKev,  but  also  with  rj^er/cev.  Of  course,  in  the  second  case,  adverbially : Et 
quantopere  misertus  sit  tui.  It  is  true  that  we  should  rather  expect  in  such  a case 
to  have  the  oca  repeated,  but  there  are  abundant  examples  to  justify  the  omission. 

X Augustine  ( Qucest . Evany.,  1.  2,  c.  13) : Ut  sic  quisque  intelligat  post  remissionem 
peccatorum  redeundum  sibi  esse  in  conscientiam  bonam,  et  serviendum  Evangelio  prop- 
ter aliorum  etiam  salutem,  ut  deinde  cum  Christo  requiescat ; ne  cum  praeproperb  jam 
vult  esse  cum  Christo,  negligat  ministerium  praedicationis,  fraternae  redemptioni  accom 

19 


146 


THE  GADAEENE  DEMONIACS. 


Yet  this  command  that  he  should  go  and  declare  the  wonderful  works 
of  God  in  regard  of  him,  may  also  have  rested  on  other  grounds,  may 
have  found  its  motive  in  the  peculiar  idiosyncracy  of  the  man.  Only 
with  reference  to  this  state  are  we  able  to  reconcile  the  apparently  con- 
tradictory commands  which  the  Lord  gave  to  those  whom  he  had  healed : 
— some  bidden  to  say  nothing,  (Matt.  viii.  4 ; Luke  viii.  56.) — this  one 
to  publish  abroad  the  mercy  which  he  had  received.  Where  there  was 
danger  of  all  deeper  impressions  being  lost  and  scattered  through  a gar- 
rulous repetition  of  the  outward  circumstances  of  the  healing,  there  si- 
lence was  enjoined,  that  so  there  might  be  an  inward  brooding  over  the 
gracious  and  mighty  dealing  of  the  Lord.  But  where,  on  the  contrary, 
there  was  a temperament  over-inclined  to  melancholy,  sunken  and  shut 
up  in  itself,  and  needing  to  be  drawn  out  from  self,  aud  into  healthy  com- 
munion with  its  fellow-men,  as  was  evidently  the  case  with  such  a soli- 
tary melancholic  person  as  we  have  here,  there  the  command  was,  that 
he  should  go  and  tell  to  others  the  great  things  which  God  had  done  for 
him,  and  in  this  telling  preserve  the  healthy  condition  of  his  own  soul. 

modatum.  He  makes  in  the  same  place  this  whole  account  an  hi stor ico-prophetic 
delineation  of  the  exorcising,  so  to  speak,  of  the  heathen  world  of  its  foul  super- 
stitions and  devilish  idolatries. 


THE  RAISING  OF  JAIRUS’S  DAUGHTER. 


Matt,  ix.  18,  19,  23 — 26  ; Mark  v.  22,  24,  35 — 43 ; Luke  viii.  41,  42,  49 — 56. 


The  present  miracle  is  connected  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  imme- 
diately with  our  Lord’s  return  from  the  country  on  the  other  side  of  the 
lake,  which  he  had  left  at  the  urgent  entreaty  of  the  inhabitants.  In 
St.  Matthew  other  events,  the  curing  of  the  paralytic,  the  calling  of 
Matthew,  and  some  discourses  of  the  Lord  with  the  Pharisees,  are  in- 
serted between.  Yet  of  these  only  the  latter  (ix.  10 — 17.)  the  best 
harmonists  find  reaUy  to  have  their  place  here.  The  two  later  Evan- 
gelists tell  us  also  the  name  of  the  father  of  the  child ; St.  Matthew 
who  has  his  eye  only  on  the  main  fact,  and  passes  over  every  thing  that 
is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  that,  speaks  of  him  more  generally  as 
“ a certain  ruler  they  again  telling  us  what  kind  of  a ruler,  namely 
that  he  was  one  of  the  prefects  of  the  synagogue.*  This,  we  can  hardly 
doubt,  was  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  where  now  J esus  was  ; (Matt, 
ix.  1 ;)  he  was  therefore  one  who  most  probably  afterwards  made  a 
part  of  that  deputation  which  came  to  the  Lord  pleading  for  the  heathen 
centurion;  (Luke  vii.  3;)  for  “the  elders  of  the  Jews”  there,  are 
identical  with  the  “ rulers  of  the  synagogue ” here. 

But  he  who  appears  on  that  later  occasion  pleading  for  another,  pre- 
sents himself  now  before  the  Lord,  touched  by  a yet  nearer  calamity ; 
for  he  comes  saying,  “ My  daughter  is  even  now  dead , but  come  and  lay 


* In  Matthew  simply  apxav,  which  is  explained  in  Mark,  elg  rdv  apytawayCiyuv, 
in  Luke,  dpxav  rr/g  avvayoiyrjg.  Many  synagogues  had  but  one  of  these,  so  it  would 
seem,  Luke  xiiL  14.  The  name  itself  seems  to  point  out  some  single  person,  who 
was  at  the  head  of  the  whole ; yet  it  is  plain  from  this  and  many  other  passages,  as  Acts 
xiii.  15,  that  a synagogue  often  had  many  of  these  rulers.  Probably  those  described  as 
Tovg  ovrag  7 Civ  T ovdcuwv  rrpurovg,  whom  St.  Paul  summoned  at  Rome,  (Acts  xxviii. 
17,)  were  these  chiefs  of  the  synagogue.  (See  V itrixga,  De  Synagogd,  p.  5S4,  seg.) 


148 


THE  RAISING  OF  JAIRUS’s  DAUGHTER. 


thine  hand  upon  her , and  she  shall  live”  Thus  St.  Matthew  records  his 
words,  but  the  others  with  an  important  variation : — “ My  little  daughter 
lieth  at  the  point  of  death  f*  (Mark  v.  23.)  “ He  had  one  only  daughter , 
about  twelve  years  of  age , and  she  lay  a dying f (Luke  viii.  42.)  Thus 
they  speak  of  her  as  dying  when  the  father  came,  which  the  latter  part 
of  the  history  shows  to  have  been  the  more  exact,  St.  Matthew  as  already 
dead.  Yet  these  differences  are  not  hard  to  adjust ; he  left  her  at  the 
last  gasp ; he  knew  not  whether  to  regard  her  as  alive  or  dead ; he  knew 
that  life  was  ebbing  so  fast  when  he  quitted  her  side,  that  she  could 
scarcely  be  living  now  ;f  and  yet,  having  no  certain  notices  of  her 
death,  he  was  perplexed  whether  to  speak  of  her  as  departed  or  not,  and 
thus  at  one  moment  expressed  himself  in  one  language,  at  the  next  in 
another.  It  is  singular  enough  that  a circumstance  of  this  kind,  so 
taken  from  the  life,  so  testifying  of  the  reality  of  the  things  recorded, 
should  have  been  advanced  by  some  as  a contradiction  between  one 
Gospel  and  another. 

That  Lord,  upon  whose  ear  the  tidings  of  woe  might  never  fall  in 
vain,  at  once  u arose  and  followed  him , and  so  did  his  disciples .”  The 
crowd  who  had  been  listening  to  his  teaching,  followed  also,  that  they 
might  see  the  end.  The  miracle  of  the  healing  the  woman  with  the 
issue  of  blood  found  place  upon  the  way,  but  it  will  naturally  be  better 
treated  apart,  especially  as  it  is  entirely  separable  from  this  history, 
though  not  altogether  without  its  bearing  upon  it;  for  the  delay,  the 
words  to  the  disciples,  the  conversation  with  the  woman,  must  all  have 
been  a sore  trial  to  the  agonized  father,  now  when  every  moment  wao 
precious,  when  death  was  shaking  the  last  few  sands  in  the  hour-glass 
of  his  daughter’s  life, — a trial  in  its  kind  similar  to  that  with  which  the 
sisters  of  Lazarus  were  tried,  when  they  beheld  their  beloved  brother 
drawing  ever  nigher  to  death,  and  the  Lord  tarried  notwithstanding. 
But  however  great  the  trial,  we  detect  no  signs  of  impatience  on  his  part, 
and  this  no  doubt  was  laid  to  his  account.  While  the  Lord  was  yet 
speaking  to  the  woman,  there  came  from  the  ruler’s  house  certain  of  his 
friends  or  servants.  St.  Luke  mentions  but  one,  probably  that  one  who 
was  especially  charged  with  the  message,  whom  others  went  along  with, 
even  as  it  is  common  for  men  in  their  thirst  for  excitement  to  have  a 

* ’Eer^arwf  lxtlv  ~ extremis  esse  ; one  of  the  frequent  Latinisms  of  SI.  Mark. 
So  hcavov  iroiTjoai  — satisfacere,  (xv.  15,)  oireKov^drug,  (vi.  27,)  (ppayellou,  (xv.  15,) 
teyeuv,  ( v . 9,  15,)  and  many  more. 

f Bengel : Ita  dixit  ex  conjectura.  Augustine  (De  Cons.  Evany.,  1.  2,  c.  28) : Ita 
enim  desperaverat,  ut  potius  earn  vellet  reviviscere,  non  credens  vivam  posse  inveniri, 
quam  morientem  reliquerat.  But  Theophylact,  not,  I think,  rightly : ’Hv  av^avuv  ttjv 
npcpopdv,  wf  elg  £2,eov  k’kKvaai  rov  Xpiorov. 


THE  RAISING  OE  JAIRUS’s  DAUGHTER. 


149 


kind  of  pleasure  in  being  the  bearers  even  of  evil  tidings.  They  come 
“ saying  to  him , Thy  daughter  is  dead , trouble  not * the  Master .”  They 
who,  perhaps,  had  faith  enough  to  believe  that  Christ  could  fan  the  last 
expiring  spark  of  life  into  a flame,  yet  had  not  the  stronger  faith  which 
would  have  enabled  them  to  believe  the  harder  thing,  that  he  could  once 
more  enkindle  that  spark  of  life,  when  it  was  quenched  altogether. 
Their  hope  had  perished : perhaps  the  father’s  would  have  perished  too, 
and  thus  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  this  miracle,  since  faith,  the 
necessary  condition,  would  have  been  wanting ; but  a gracious  Lord 
prevented  his  rising  doubts,  for  uas  soon  as  he  heard  the  word  that  was 
spoken , he  saith  to  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue , Be  wt  afraid , only  believe .” 
Here  the  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  the  first  words — as  soon  as  the 
tidings  came,  on  that  very  instant  the  Lord  spake,  thus  leaving  no  room 
or  place  for  a doubt  to  insinuate  into  the  father’s  mind,  before  he  had 
pre-occupied  him  with  a word  of  confidence  and  encouragement,  f 

The  Lord  took  with  him  but  three  of  his  apostles,  the  same  three 
who  were  allowed,  more  than  once  on  later  occasions,  to  be  witnesses  of 
things  hidden  from  the  rest.  This,  however,  is  the  first  time  that  we 
read  of  any  such  election  within  the  election,];  and  the  fact  of  such 
now  finding  place  would  mark,  especially  when  we  remember  the 
solemn  significance  of  the  other  seasons  of  a like  selection,  (Matt.  xvii. 
2 ; xxvi.  37;)  that  this  was  a new  era  in  the  life  of  the  Lord.  That 
which  he  was  about  to  do  was  so  great  and  holy  that  those  three  only, 
the  flower  and  the  crown  of  the  apostolic  band,  were  its  fitting  witnesses. 
The  parents  were  present  on  grounds  altogether  different.  Those,  and 
these,  and  none  other,  accompanied  him  into  the  house.  There,  as 
every  where  else,  he  appears  as  the  calmer  and  pacifier : “ Why  make 
ye  this  ado  and  weep  ? the  damsel  is  not  dead , but  sleepethB  Some,  and 
those  not  unbelievers,  nor  persons  who  have  learned  to  regard  miracles 
as  so  much  perilous  ware,  from  which  it  is  always  an  advantage  when 

* 2/cuA/tw,  properly  to  flay,  as  a avia  are  originally  the  spoils,  dress,  or  armor, 
stripped  from  the  bodies  of  the  slain;  see  Passow.  Afterwards  more  generally, 
fatigare,  vexare,  and  often  it  would  seem  with  a more  particular  allusion  to  fatiguing 
with  the  length  of  a journey ; and  so  perhaps  here,  “ Why  do  you  weary  the  master 
with  this  tedious  way  ?”  It  is  well  known  that  some  MSS.  and  Fathers  read  eauvlye- 
vol  for  inleTivyivoi  at  Matt.  ix.  36,  which,  if  the  word  have  indeed  this  under  mean- 
ing, would  then  be  peculiarly  appropriate.  (See  Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.) 

j*  Titus  Bostrensis  (in  Cramer’s  Cat , in  Luc.):  "Iva  yaq  jut)  eltztj  nal  avrogdEma- 
£££•,  ov  xp£iav  gov  £%«,  Kvpie,  fjSri  yeyovs  to  irepag,  an edavev,  f]V  npoaedoKuyev  vyiaU 
veiv’  amcTog  yaq  r/v,  ’lovdalnov  Eftov  Qpovjjya,  <f>ddvEi  6 K vpiog  sal  M tj  <j>oPov. 

navaov  rrjc  amariag  tcL  fitf/iara. 

% The  three,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  are  called  therefore  by  Clement  of  Alexan 
dria,  ek2,ektuv  kn'keK.TOTEpovg. 


150 


THE  RAISING  OF  JAIRUS’s  DAUGHTER. 

the  Gospels  can  be  a little  lightened, — Olshausen,  for  instance,*  who  is 
as  far  as  possible  from  wishing  to  explain  away  the  wonderful  works  of 
our  Lord, — have  yet  considered  his  words,  repeated  by  all  the  narra- 
tors, “ The  maid  is  not  dead , but  sleepeth ,”  to  be  so  explicit  and  distinct 
a declaration  that  death  had  not  absolutely  taken  place,  that  in  obedi- 
ence, as  they  believe,  to  these  words  of  our  Lord’s,  they  refuse  to  num- 
ber this  among  the  actual  raisings  from  the  dead.  They  will  count  it 
only  a raising  from  a death-like  swoon ; though  one  it  may  have  been 
from  which  the  maiden  would  never  have  returned  but  for  that  life-giv- 
ing touch  and  voice.  Had  this,  however,  been  the  case,  Christ’s  word  to 
the  father  would  clearly  have  been  different,  when  the  tidings  came  that 
the  spirit  of  the  child  had  actually  fled.  The  consolation  must  have 
clothed  itself  in  another  language.  He  might  have  brought  out  the  side 
of  his  omniscience,  and  bid  him  not  to  fear,  for  he  knew  that  no  such 
evil  had  befallen  him  as  he  imagined.  But  that  “ Be  not  afraid , only  be- 
lieve ,”  points  another  way;  it  is  an  evident  summoning  him  to  a trust 
in  the  all-might  of  the  gracious  helper,  who  is  coming  with  him  to  his 
house. 

And  as  regards  the  Lord’s  words,  that  the  maiden  w'as  not  dead,  but 
slept,  he  uses  exactly  the  same  language  concerning  Lazarus,  “ Our 
friend  Lazarus  sleepeth,”  (John  xi.  11 ;)  and  when  Olshausen  replies  to 
this  obvious  objection,  that  Christ  explains  there  distinctly  that  he  meant 
the  sleep  of  death,  adding  presently,  “ Lazarus  is  dead,”  it  is  enough 
to  answer  that  he  does  not  do  so  till  his  disciples  have  misunderstood 
his  words : he  would  have  left  those  words,  but  for  their  mistaking  them 
and  supposing  he  had  spoken  of  natural  sleep — “Then  said  Jesus  unto 
them  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead.”  But  as  Lazarus  only  slept,  because 
Jesus  was  going  that  he  “ might  awake  him  out  of  sleep,”  so  was  she  only 
sleeping,  because  her  awakening  was  so  near.f  Beside  this,  to  speak 
of  death  as  a sleep,  is  an  image  common,  I suppose,  to  all  languages 
and  nations.  Thereby  the  reality  of  the  death  is  not  denied,  but  only 
the  fact  implicitly  assumed,  that  death  will  be  followed  by  a resurrection, 
as  sleep  is  by  an  awakening.  Nor  is  it  hard  to  perceive  why  the  Lord 
should  have  spoken  in  this  language  here.  First,  in  regard  to  the  father, 
the  words  are  an  establishing  of  a tottering  faith,  which  the  sight  of  all 

* Origen  {Con.  Cels.,  ii.  48)  has,  I think,  the  same  view  of  this  miracle.  He  is 
observing  on  the  absence  of  all  'prodigality  in  the  miracles,  and  notes  that  we  have 
but  three  raisings  from  the  dead  in  all : mentioning  this  first  of  Jairus’s  daughter,  he 
adds,  nepl  yg  ovk  old’  omog  elnev,  O vk  aTcedavev,  aXkiL  tcadevder  Aeyuv  ri  irepl  avryg 
o oh  tcugi  rolg  uTrodavoveai  npocrjv,  but  he  does  not  express  himself  very  plainly. 

f Fritzsche:  Puellam  ne  pro  mortu£  habetote,  sed  dormire  existimatote,  quippe 
in  vitam  mox  redituram. 


THE  EAISLXG  OF  JAIEUS’s  DAUGHTEE, 


151 


these  signs  of  mourning,  these  evidences  that  all  was  finished,  might 
easily  have  overturned  altogether.  They  are  a saying  over  again,  “ Be 
not  afraid , only  believe.”  He,  the  Lord  of  life,  takes  away  that  word 
of  fear,  “ She  is  dead,”  and  puts  in  its  room  that  milder  word  which 
gives  promise  of  an  awakening,  “ She  sleepeth.”  And  then  in  regard 
of  the  multitude,  according  to  that  holy  humility  which  makes  him  ever 
withdraw  his  miracles  as  much  as  possible  from  observation,  he  will  by 
this  word  of  a double  signification  cast  a veil  over  that  which  he  is 
about  to  accomplish. 

And  now,  having  thus  spoken,  he  expelled  from  the  house  the  crowd 
of  turbulent  mourners,  and  this  for  two  reasons ; and  first,  their  presence 
was  evidently  inappropriate  and  superfluous  there ; they  were  mourners 
for  the  dead,  and  she  was  not  dead ; or,  at  least,  her  death  was  so  soon 
to  give  place  to  returning  life,  that  it  did  not  deserve  the  name ; it  was 
but  as  a sleep  and  an  awakening,  though  they,  indeed,  who  heard  this 
assertion  of  the  Lord,  so  little  understood  it,  that  they  met  it  with  laugh- 
ter and  with  scorn,  “ knowing  that  she  was  deadf  that  they  were  mourn- 
ers for  the  dead.  This  would  have  been  reason  enough  for  silencing  and 
putting  out  those  mourners.  But  in  addition  to  this,  the  boisterous  and 
turbulent  grief  of  some,  the  hired  lamentations,  it  may  be,  of  others,* 
gave  no  promise  of  the  true  tone  and  temper,  which  became  the  witnesses 
of  so  holy  and  awful  a mystery,  a mystery  from  which  even  apostles 
themselves  were  excluded — not  to  speak  of  the  profane  and  scornful 
spirit  with  which  they  had  received  the  Lord’s  assurance,  that  the  child 
should  presently  awake.  The  scorners  were  not  to  witness  the  holy  act ; 
— the  pearls  were  for  others  than  for  them.f 

The  house  was  now  solitary  and  still.  Two  souls,  believing  and 
hoping,  stand  like  funeral  tapers  beside  the  couch  of  the  dead  maiden 
— the  father  and  the  mother.  His  Church  the  Lord  sees  represented 
in  his  three  most  trusted  apostles.  And  now  the  solemn  awakening 
finds  place.  He  took  the  child,  for  such  she  was,  being  but  twelve  years 
of  age,  (Mark  v.  42,)  “ by  the  hand , and  called , saying , Maid,  arise.” 
Saint  Mark  gives  us  the  very  words  which  the  Lord  spake  in  the  very 
language  wherein  he  uttered  them,  “ Talitha  Cumi ,”  no  doubt  as  having 
something  especially  solemn  in  them,  as  he  does  the  “ Ephphatha”  on 
another  occasion,  (vii.  34.)  And  at  that  word,  and  at  the  touch  of  that 
hand,  “ her  spirit  came  again, £ and  she  arose  straightway  (Luke  viii.  55) 

* The  presence  of  the  hired  mourners  at  a funeral,  in  general  women,  (dpipHodoi, 
prseficee,  cornicines,  tubicines,)  was  a Greek  and  Eoman,  as  well  as  a Jewish,  custom. 
(See  Becker’s  ChariJcles,  v.  2,  p.  180.) 

•f-  "We  may  compare  2 Kin.  iv.  33,  where  every  one  is  in  like  manner  excluded. 

\ Tire  words  of  St.  Luke,  ical  e-earpEipe  rd  Tzvevya  avTTjg,  are  exactly  the  same  as 
those  1 Kin.  xvii.  22,  LXX.  N 


152 


THE  RAISING  OE  JAIRUS’s  DAUGHTER. 


and  walked .”  (Mark  v.  42.)  And  then  at  once  to  strengthen  that  life 
which  was  come  back  to  her,  and  to  prove  that  she  was  indeed  no  ghost, 
but  had  returned  to  the  realities  of  a mortal  existence,  (Luke  xxiv.  41 ; 
John  xxi.  5;  Acts  x.  41,)  u he  commanded  to  give  her  meat  y”  which  pre- 
caution was  the  more  necessary,  as  the  parents  in  that  ecstatic  moment 
might  easily  have  forgotten  it. 

These  miracles  of  raising  from  the  dead,  whereof  we  have  been  now 
considering  the  first,  have  always  been  regarded  as  the  mightiest  outcom- 
ings  of  the  power  of  Christ ; and  with  justice.  They  are  those,  also,  at 
which  unbelief  is  readiest  to  stumble,  standing  as  they  do  in  a yet  more 
striking  contrast  than  any  of  the  other,  to  all  that  experience  has  known. 
The  line  between  health  and  sickness  is  not  definitely  fixed;  the  two 
conditions  melt  one  into  the  other,  and  the  transition  from  this  to  that  is 
frequent.  In  like  manner  storms  alternate  with  calms  ; the  fiercest  tem- 
pest allays  itself  at  last,  and  Christ’s  word  did  but  anticipate  and  effect  in 
a moment,  what  the  very  course  of  nature  must  have  effected  in  the  end. 
Even  the  transmutation  from  water  to  wine,  and  the  multiplication  of  the 
bread,  are  not  without  their  analogies,  however  remote ; and  thus  too  is 
it  with  most  of  the  other  miracles.  But  between  being  and  the  negation 
of  being  the  opposition  is  not  relative  but  absolute : between  death  and 
life  a gulf  lies,  which  nothing  that  nature  lends,  helps  us  even  in  imagi- 
nation to  bridge  over.  These  considerations  sufficiently  explain  how  it 
should  come  to  pass  that  these  raisings  from  the  dead  are  signs  more 
spoken  against  than  any  other  among  the  mighty  works  which  the  Lord 
accomplished. 

The  present  will  be  an  apt  moment  for  saying  something  concerning 
them  and  the  relations  of  difficulty  in  which  they  stand,  if  not  to  the 
other  miracles,  yet  to  one  another.  For  they  are  not  exactly  the  same 
miracle  repeated  three  times  over,  but  may  be  contemplated  as  in  an  ever 
ascending  scale  of  difficulty,  each  a greater  outcoming  of  the  power  of 
Christ  than  the  preceding.  For  as  the  body  of  one  freshly  dead,  from 
which  life  is  but  just  departed,  is  very  different  from  a mummy  or  a 
skeleton,  so  is  it,  though  not  in  so  great  a degree,  different  from  a corpse, 
whence  for  some  days  the  breath  of  life  has  fled.  There  is,  so  to  speak, 
a fresh  trodden  way  between  the  body,  and  the  soul  which  just  has  for- 
saken and,  according  to  that  Jewish  legend  which  may  rest  on  a very 
deep  truth,  lingers  for  a while  and  hovers  near  the  tabernacle  where  it 
has  dwelt  so  long,  and  to  which  it  knows  itself  bound  by  links,  which 
even  now  have  not  been  divided  for  ever.  Even  science  itself  has 
arrived  at  the  conjecture,  that  the  last  echoes  of  life  ring  in  the  body 
much  longer  than  is  commonly  supposed ; that  for  a while  it  is  full  of 


THE  RAISING-  OF  JAIRUS’s  DAUGHTER. 


153 


the  reminiscences  of  life.  Out  of  this  we  may  explain  how  it  so  fre- 
quently comes  to  pass,  that  all  which  marked  the  death-struggle  passes 
presently  away,  and  the  true  image  of  the  departed,  the  image  it  may 
be  of  years  long  before,  reappears  in  perfect  calmness  and  in  almost 
ideal  beauty.  Which  things  being  so,  we  shall  at  once  recognize  in  the 
quickening  of  him  that  had  been  four  days  dead,  a yet  mightier  wonder 
than  in  the  raising  of  the  young  man  who  was  borne  out  to  his  burial; 
since  that  burial,  according  to  Jewish  custom,  would  have  followed  death 
by  an  interval,  at  most,  of  a single  day ; and  again  in  that  miracle  a 
mightier  outcoming  of  Christ’s  power  than  in*the  present,  wherein  life’s 
flame,  like  some  newly-extinguished  taper,  was  still  more  easily  re- 
enkindled again,  being  brought  in  contact  with  him  in  whom  was  the 
fountain-flame  of  all  life.  Mightier  also  than  any  of  these  wonders,  will 
be  the  wonder  of  that  hour,  when  all  the  dead  of  old,  that  have  lain, 
some  of  them  for  so  many  thousand  years,  in  the  dust  of  death  shall 
be  summoned  from  and  shall  leave  their  graves  at  the  same  quickening 
voioe. 

m 


VII. 


THE  WOMAN*WITH  AN  ISSUE  OF  BLOOD 

Matt.  ix.  20 — 22 ; Marx  v.  25 — 34 ; Luke  viii.  43 — 48. 

In  all  three  accounts  which  we  have  of  this  miracle,  it  is  intertwined 
with  that  other  of  the  raising  of  Jairus’s  daughter.  As  the  Prince  of 
life  was  on  his  road  to  the  accomplishing  that  other,  he  accomplished 
this,  as  by  the  way.  It  is  to  St.  Mark  and  Luke  that  we  owe  the  more 
detailed  accounts,  which  bring  out  its  distinctive  features.  St.  Matthew 
relates  it  more  briefly : so  that,  if  we  had  not  the  parallel  narrations, 
we  should  be  in  danger  of  missing  much  of  the  instruction  which  is  here 
contained  for  us. 

As  the  crowd  followed  Jesus,  curious  to  witness  what  the  issue 
would  be,  and  whether  he  would  indeed  raise  the  dead  or  dying  daughter 
of  J aims,  which  by  his  consenting  to  accompany  him  home  he  seemed 
to  have  undertaken  to  do, — as  this  crowd  pressed  upon  him,  there  came 
one,  who,  not  out  of  curiosity,  nor  at  all  as  that  unmannered  multitude, 
touched  him  from  behind.  This  was  a woman*  that  had  labored  long, 

*A  sermon,  wrongly  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose,  makes  this  woman  to  have  been 
Martha,  the  sister  of  Lazarus.  Another  legend,  that  of  the  gospel  of  Nicodemus, 
(see  Thilo’s  Cod.  Apocryph.,  v.  l,p.  562,)  makes  her  to  have  been  Veronica.  There 
is  a strange  story,  full  of  inexplicable  difficulties,  told  by  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Heel.,  1. 7, 
c.  18,)  of  a-statue,  or  rather  two  statues,  in  brass,  one  of  Christ,  another  of  this  woman 
kneeling  to  him,  which  existed  in  his  time  at  Caesarea  Paneas,  having  been  raised  by 
her  in  thankful  commemoration  of  her  healing.  See  the  10th  excursus  in  the  Anno- 
tations (Oxford,  1842)  to  Dr.  Burton’s  Husebius.  The  belief  that  these  statues  did 
refer  to  this  event  was  so  widely  spread  as  to  cause  Julian,  in  his  hatred  against  all 
memorials  of  Christianity,  or  according  to  others,  Maximinus,  to  destroy  it.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  a group,  capable  of  being  made  to  signify  this  event,  was  there, 
for  Eusebius  speaks  as  having  himself  seen  it,  but  the  correctness  of  the  application 
is  far  more  questionable.  Justin  Martyr’s  mistaking  of  a statue  erected  at  Eome  to  a 
Sabine  deity,  (Semoni  Sanco,)  for  one  erected  in  honor  of  Simon  Magus,  shows  how 


THE  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OF  BLOOD. 


155 


for  no  less  than  twelve  years,  under  a disease  from  which  she  found  no 
healing  from  the  physicians,  but  rather  she  had  suffered  many  aggrava- 
tions of  her  disease,  from  the  painfulness  of  their  attempted  remedies,44 
the  costliness  of  which,  with  the  expenses  that  had  attended  her  long 
sickness,  had  brought  her  to  poverty.  “ All  that  she  had ” had  been 
ineffectually  wasted  in  seeking  for  restoration,  and  withal  she  “was 
nothing  bettered , but  rather  grew  worse” \ The  faith  that  brought  her  to 
touch  the  hem  of  the  Lord’s  garment  was  a most  real  faith,  (see  ver.  22, 
“ Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,”)  yet  was  it  not  altogether  unmingled  with 
error  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the  healing  power  of  Christ  pre- 
sented itself  to  her  mind  as  working.  It  would  appear  as  though  she 
did  not  conceive  of  the  Lord  as  healing  by  the  power  of  his  holy  will, 
but  rather  imagined  a certain  magical  influence  and  virtue  diffused 
through  his  person  and  round  about  him,  with  which  if  she  could  put 
herself  in  relation,  she  would  obtain  that  which  she  desired : “ If  I may 
touch  but  his  clothes,  I shall  be  wholeT\  And  it  is  probable  that  she 
touched  the  hem  of  his  garment,  not  merely  as  the  extremest  part,  and 
therefore  that  which  she,  timidly  drawing  near,  could  most  easily  reach, 
but  attributing  to  it  a peculiar  virtue.  For  this  hem  of  blue  fringe  on 
the  borders  of  the  garment  was  put  there  by  divine  command,  and  was 
to  remind  the  Jews  that  they  were  God’s  people.  (Num.  xv.  37 — 40 ; 
Deut.  xxii.  12.)  It  had  thus  acquired  so  peculiar  a significance,  that 
those  who  wished  to  be  esteemed  eminently  religious  were  wont  to 
make  broad  or  to  “ enlarge  the  borders  of  their  garments.”  (Matt,  xxiii. 
5.)  But  her  faith,  though  thus  imperfect  in  its  form,  and  though  it  did 
not  bear  her  like  a triumphant  flood-tide,  over  the  peculiar  difficulties 
which  beset  her,  a woman  coming  to  make  known  what  manner  of  need 
was  hers,  was  yet  most  true  in  its  essence.  That  faith,  therefore,  was 
not  disappointed,  but  was  the  channel  to  her  of  the  blessing  which  she 
sought ; no  sooner  had  she  touched  the  hem  of  his  robe  than  “ she  felt  in 
her  body  that  she  was  healed  of  that  plague.”^ 

little  critical  the  early  Christians  sometimes  were  in  matters  of  this  kind.  (See 
Deyling’s  Obss.  Sac.,  v.  1,  p.  279.) 

* See  Lightfoot’s  Hot.  Heb.,  {in  Marc.  v.  26,)  for  an  extraordinary  list  of  those 
in  use  for  this  disorder. 

f In  the  apocryphal  report  of  Pilate  to  Tiberius,  he,  alluding  to  this  miracle, 
forcibly  paints  the  extreme  emaciation  of  this  woman  from  her  complaint,  ug  nucav, 
ri)v  t&v  6gte6v  apyoviav  (pacveodai,  Kal  veXov  SiKijv  diavya&iv.  (Thilo’s  Cod.  A po- 
cryphus , v.  1,  p.  808.) 

\ There  was  something  in  her,  as  Grrotius  well  remarks,  of  the  notion  of  the 
philosophers,  Deum  agere  omnia  Qvoei  ov  Pov^rjaei. 

§ ’A7TO  Trjg  fidanyog,  scil.  Qeov,  since  disease  must  ever  be  regarded  as  the  scourge 


156 


THE  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OF  BLOOD. 


But  although  the  Evangelists  fall  in  so  far  with  the  current  of  her 
thoughts  as  to  use  language  that  would  he  appropriate  to  it,  and  to  say, 
“ Jesus  immediately  knowing  in  himself  that  virtue  had  gone  out  of  him” 
yet  we  cannot  for  an  instant  suppose  that  this  healing  power  went  forth 
without  the  full  consent  of  his  will,* — that  we  have  here,  on  his  part,  an 
unconscious  healing,  any  more  than  on  another  occasion,  when  we  read 
that  “ the  whole  multitude  sought  to  touch  him,  for  there  went  virtue 
out  of  him,  and  healed  them  all.”  (Luke  vi.  19.)  For  we  should  lose 
the  ethical,  which  is  ever  the  most  important,  element  of  the  miracle,  if 
we  could  suppose  that  power  went  forth  from  him  to  heal,  without  re- 
ference, on  his  part,  to  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  person  upon  whom 
it  went  forth.  He  who  with  the  eye  of  his  spirit  saw  Nathanael  under 
the  fig-tree,  who  needed  not  that  any  should  testify,  for  he  knew  what 
was  in  man,  must  have  known  of  this  woman  both  her  bodily  and  spi- 
ritual state, — how  sorely  as  to  the  one  she  needed  his  help,  and  how  as 
regarded  the  other  she  possessed  that  faith  which  was  the  one  necessary 
condition  of  healing,  the  one  channel  of  communication  between  him 
and  any  human  need. 

The  only  argument  which  could  at  all  be  adduced  to  favor  the  no- 
tion of  an  unconscious  going  forth  of  his  power,  would  be  that  drawn 
from  the  question  which  he  asked,  when  he  “ turned  about  him  in  the 
■press , and  said,  Who  touched  my  clothes  This  might  be  construed 
as  implying  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  person  who  had  done  it,  and 
only  uncertainly  apprehended  that  something  had  taken  place.  If  he 
knew,  it  might  be  argued,  to  what  purpose  the  question  ? But,  as  the 
sequel  of  the  history  will  abundantly  prove,  there  was  a purpose ; since 
if  she  had  been  allowed  to  carry  away  her  blessing  in  secret  as  she 
proposed,  it  would  not  have  been  at  all  the  blessing  to  her,  and  to  her 
whole  after  spiritual  life,  that  it  now  was,  when  she  was  obliged  by  this 
repeated  question  of  the  Lord,  to  own  that  she  had  come  to  seek,  and 
had  found,  health  from  him.  And  the  other  objection  is  easily  dissolved, 
namely,  that  it  would  not  have  been  perfectly  consistent  with  truth  to 
have  asked  as  not  knowing,  when  indeed  he  knew  all  the  while,  who 
had  done  that,  concerning  which  he  inquired.  But  a father  when  he 
comes  among  his  children,  and  says,  Who  committed  this  fault?  himself 
conscious,  even  while  he  asks,  but  at  the  same  time  willing  to  bring  the 
culprit  to  a free  confession,  and  so  to  put  him  in  a pardonable  state,  can 

of  God,  not  always  of  the  individual’s  sin,  but  ever  of  the  sin  which  the  individual 
has  in  common  with  the  race.  Cf.  2 Macc.  ix.  11,  Qua  /lacriZ,  and  Sirac.  xl.  9.  Sc 
ACschylus,  (Sept.  adv.  Theb .,)  nlpyelc  Qeov  pacTiyi. 

* Chrysostom : Ilap’  kicovrog  £Xa(3e  rrjv  auTijpcav,  nai  ov  nap'  atcovrog,  rjdei  ydq 
-j)v  aipapevrjv. 


THE  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OE  BLOOD.  157 


he  be  said  in  any  way  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  highest  truth?  The 
same  offence  might  be  found  in  Elisha’s  “ Whence  comest  thou,  Geha- 
zi  V]  (2  Kin.  v.  25,)  when  his  heart  went  with  him  all  the  way  that  he 
had  gone;  and  even  in  the  question  of  God  himself  to  Adam,  “Where 
art  thou  1”  In  each  of  those  cases,  as  here,  there  is  a moral  purpose 
in  the  question, — an  opportunity  given  even  at  the  latest  moment  for 
undoing  at  least  a part  of  the  fault  by  its  unreserved  confession,  an  op- 
portunity which  they  whose  examples  have  been  here  adduced,  suffered 
to  escape ; but  which  she,  who  it  needs  not  to  say  had  a fault  of  infi- 
nitely a slighter  nature  to  acknowledge,  had  ultimately  grace  given  her 
to  use. 

But  this  question  itself,  “ Who  touched  me  ?”  when  indeed  the  whole 
multitude  was  rudely  pressing  upon  and  crowding  round  him,  has  often 
suggested  many  profitable  reflections.  Thus  it  has  often  been  observed 
how  she  only  touched  with  the  touch  of  faith ; the  others,  though  as  dear 
or  nearer  in  body,  yet  lacked  that  faith  which  is  the  connecting  link  be- 
tween Christ’s  power  and  our  need ; and  thus  they  crowded  upon  Christ, 
but  did  not  touch  him  in  any  way  that  he  should  take  note  of.  And 
thus  it  is  ever  in  the  Church ; many  press  upon  Christ : his  in  name ; 
near  to  him  and  to  his  sacraments  outwardly ; yet  not  touching  him, 
because  not  drawing  near  in  faith,  not  looking  for  and  therefore  not  ob- 
taining life  and  healing  from  him,  and  through  these.* 

When  the  disciples,  and  Peter  at  their  head,  wonder  at  the  question, 
and  in  their  reply  dare  almost  to  find  fault  with  a question  which  to 
them  seems  so  out  of  place,  “ Thou  seest  the  multitude  thronging  thee , 
and  sayest  thou , Who  touched  me?”  the  Lord  replies,  re-affirming  the 
fact,  “ Somebody  hath  touched  me  ; for  I perceive  that  virtue  is  gone  out 
of  me”  Whereupon  the  woman,  finding  that  concealment  was  ^useless, 

* Augustine  ( Serm . 62,  c.  4) : Quasi  enim  sic  ambularet,  ut  a nullo  prorsus  cor  - 
pore  tangeretur,  ita  dicit,  Quis  me  tetigit?  Et  illi,  Turbze  te  comprimunt.  Et 
tanquam  diceret  Dominus,  Tangentem  qusero,  non  prementem.  Sic  etiam  nunc  est 
corpus  ejus,  id  est,  Ecclesia  ejus.  Tangit  earn  fides  paucorum,  premit  turba  multorum. 
....  Caro  enim  premit,  fides  tangit.  And  again  he  says  {Serm.  *77, 4) : Corpus 
ergo  Christi  multi  molests  premunt,  pauci  salubriter  tangunt.  And  elsewhere  he. 
makes  her  the  symbol  of  the  Church  {Serm.  245,  c.  3) : Illi  premunt,  ista  tetigit .... 
Judsei  affligunt,  Ecclesia  credidit.  Chrysostom  has  with  reference  to  this  saying  the 
same  antithesis : fO  tuotevuv  ei$  rov  'ZoTjjpa  uktetcu  avrov"  6 6b  amaruv  QXtfiu  avrov 
Kal  Iviret.  Cf.  Gregory  the  Great,  Moral.,  1.  3,*  c.  20,  and  1.  20,  c.  17.  Chemnitz 
{Harm.  Evang.,  c.  67) : Ita  quoque  in  Ecclesia  multi  Christo  approximant,  externis 
auribus  verbum  salutis  accipiunt,  ore  suo  Sacramentum  corporis  et  sanguinis  ipsius 
manducant  et  bibunt,  nullam  tamen  efficaciam  ex  eo  percipiunt,  nec  sentiunt  fluxum 
ilium  peccatorum  suorum  sisti  et  exsiccari.  Unde  illud?  Quia  destituuntur  vera 
fide,  quse  sola  ex  hoc  fonte  haurit  gratiam  pro  gratia. 


158 


THE  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OE  BLOOD. 


that  the  denial,  which  probably  she  had  made  with  the  rest,  for  it  is 
said,  “ all  denied ,”  (Luke  viii.  45,)  would  profit  her  nothing;  unable, 
too,  to  escape  his  searching  glance,  for  “ he  looked  round  about  to  see 
her”  (Mark  v.  32,)  “ came  trembling , and  falling  down  before  him , she 
declared  unto  him  and  this  u before  all  the  people , for  what  cause  she 
had  touched  him , and  how  she  was  healed  immediately .”  Olshausen 
brings  out  here,  with  much  beauty,  how  in  all  this  the  loving  and  gra- 
cious dealings  of  the  Son  of  man,  who  always  sought  to  make  through 
the  healing  of  the  body  a way  for  the  healing  of  the  soul,  are  to  be 
traced.  She  had  borne  away  a maimed  blessing,  hardly  a blessing  at 
all,  had  she  been  suffered  to  bear  it  away  in  secret  and  unacknowledged. 
She  desired  to  remain  in  concealment  out  of  a shame,  which,  however 
natural,  was  untimely  here  in  this  crisis  of  her  spiritual  life : and  this 
her  loving  Saviour  would  not  suffer  her  to  do : by  a gracious  force  he 
drew  her  from  it ; yet  even  here  he  spared  her  as  far  as  he  could.  For 
not  before,  but  after  she  is  healed,  does  he  require  the  open  confession 
from  her  lips.  She  had  found  it  perhaps  altogether  too  hard,  had  he 
demanded  it  of  her  before ; therefore  does  he  graciously  wait  till  the 
cure  is  accomplished,  and  thus  helps  her  through  the  narrow  way. 
Altogether  spare  her  this  painful  passage  he  could  not,  for  it  pertained 
to  her  birth  into  the  new  life.* 

And  now  he  dismisses  her  with  words  of  gracious  encouragement. 
“ Daughter , be  of  good  comfort ; thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole”  \ Her 
faith  had  made  her  whole,  and  Christ’s  virtue  had  made  her  whole.  J It 
is  as  when  we  say  that  faith  justifies : our  faith  is  not  itself  a blessing; 
but  it  is  the  organ  by  which  the  blessing  is  received ; it  is  the  right 


* Sedulius  then  has  exactly  missed  the  point  of  the  narrative,  when  of  the  Lord 
he  says, 


furtumque  fidele 

Laudat,  et  ingenuae  tribuit  sua  vota  rapinae  ; 


for  it  was  precisely  this  which  was  deficient  in  her,  that  she  sought  it  as  a furtum , 
when  she  should  have  claimed  it  openly:  and  no  less  Bernard,  {Be  Divers.,  Serin.  99,) 
when  he  makes  her  the  figure  of  all  those  who  would  do  good  hiddenly,  avoiding  all 
human  applause : Sunt  alii  qui  nonnulla  bona  occults  faciunt,  . . . . sed  tamen  furari 
[regnum  ccelorum]  dicuntur,  quia  laudem  humanam  vitantes,  solo  divino  testimonio 
contenti  sunt.  Horum  figuram  tenuit  mulier  in  Evangelio,  (fee.  Rather  she  is  the 
figure  of  those  who  would  get  good  hiddenly,  and  without  an  open  profession  of  their 
faith,  who  believe  in  their  hearts,  but  shrink  from  confessing  with  their  lips,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  forgetting  that  not  this  alone,  but  that  also  is  required.  (Rom.  x.  9.) 

\ Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  20. 

\ Her  faith,  opyaviKup,  Christ’s  virtue,  hepyijriKoig.  This,  as  the  causa  efficiens  *. 
that,  as  the  conditio  sine  qua  non. 


THE  WOMAN  WITH  AN  ISSUE  OE  BLOOD. 


159 


hand  of  the  soul,  which  lays  hold  upon  it.  “ Go  in  jpeace  this  is  not 
merely,  Go  with  a blessing,  but,  Go  into  the  element  of  peace  as  the 
future  element  in  which  thy  life  shall  tmove ; — “ and  be  whole  of  thy 
plagued 

Theophylact  brings  out  a mystical  meaning  in  this  miracle.  This 
woman’s  complaint  represents  the  ever-flowing  fountain  of  sin;  the 
physicians,  the  philosophers  and  wise  men  of  this  world,  that  with  all 
their  medicines,  their  systems  and  their  philosophies,  prevailed  nothing 
to  stanch  that  fountain  of  evil  in  man’s  heart.  To  touch  Christ’s  gar- 
ment is  to  believe  in  his  Incarnation,  wherein  he  touched  us,  enabling 
us  to  touch  him : whereupon  that  healing,  which  in  all  those  other 
things  was  vainly  sought,  follows  at  once.  And  if  we  keep  in  mind 
how  her  uncleanness  separated  her  off  as  one  impure,  we  shall  have 
here  an  exact  picture  of  the  sinner,  drawing  nigh  to  the  throne  of  grace, 
but  out  of  the  sense  of  his  impurity  not  with  boldness,  rather  with  fear 
and  trembling,  hardly  knowing  what  there  he  shall  expect ; but  who  is 
welcomed  there,  and,  all  his  carnal  doubtings  and  questionings  expelled, 
dismissed  with  the  word  of  an  abiding  peace  resting  upon  him. 


VIII, 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  TWO  BLIND  IN  THE  HOUSE 

Matt.  ix.  27 — 31. 


We  have  here  the  first  of  those  healings  of  the  blind  whereof  so 
many  are  recorded  (Matt.  xii.  22 ; xx.  30 ; xxi.  14 ; John  ix.)  or  al- 
luded to  in  the  Gospel  narrative.*  Nor  is  this  little  history  without  one 
or  two  features  distinguishing  it  from  others  of  a like  kind.  These  two 
blind  men  appear  to  have  followed  Jesus  in  the  way ; it  may  have  been, 
and  Jerome  supposes  it  was,  as  he  was  returning  from  the  house  of  Jai- 
rus.  Yet  one  would  not  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  connection  in  which 
St.  Matthew  sets  the  miracle,  or  necessarily  conclude  that  he  intended 
to  place  it  in  such  immediate  relation  of  time  and  place  with  the  raising 
of  the  ruler’s  daughter.  There  was  the  same  trial  of  the  faith  of  these 
blind  men,  although  in  a more  mitigated  form,  as  found  place  in  the  case 
of  the  Syrophenician  woman.  Not  all  at  once  did  they  receive  the  boon 
which  they  sought;  but  the  Lord  seemed  at  first  rather  to  withdraw 
himself  from  them,  suffering  them  to  cry  after  him,  and  for  a while  pay- 

* Their  frequent  recurrence  need  not  surprise  us ; for  blindness  throughout  all 
the  East  is  a far  commoner  calamity  than  with  us.  For  this  there  are  many  causes. 
The  dust  and  flying  sand,  pulverized  and  reduced  to  minutest  particles,  enters  the 
eyes,  causing  inflammations,  which  being  neglected,  end  frequently  in  total  loss  of 
sight.  The  sleeping  in  the  open  air,  on  the  roofs  of  the  houses,  and  the  consequent 
exposure  of  the  eyes  to  the  noxious  nightly  dews,  is  another  source  of  this  malady. 
A modern  traveller  calculates  that  there  are  four  thousand  blind  in  Cairo  alone,  and 
another  that  you  may  reckon  twenty  such  in  every  hundred  persons.  It  is  true  that 
in  Syria  the  proportion  of  those  afflicted  with  blindness  is  not  at  all  so  great,  yet 
there  also  the  calamity  is  of  far  more  frequent  occurrence  than  in  western  lands,  so 
that  we  find  humane  regulations  concerning  the  blind  as  concerning  a class  in  the  old 
Law.  (Lev.  xix.  14  ; Deut.  xxvii.  18.) 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OE  TWO  BLIND. 


161 


ing  no  regard  to  their  cries.  It  was  only  after  they  followed  him  into 
the  house,  and  had  thus  shown  that  they  were  in  earnest  in  seeking  and 
expecting  a boon  from  him,  that  he  yielded  to  them  the  blessing  which 
they  sought.*  But  ere  he  does  this,  as  he  has  tried  them  in  deed  by  the 
delay  of  the  blessing,  he  proves  them  also  in  word.  He  will  have  the 
confession  of  their  faith  from  their  own  lips : “ Believe  ye  that  I am  able 
to  do  this?  They  said  unto  him , Yea,  Lord.”  And  then,  when  he  found 
that  they  had  this  necessary  condition  for  the  receiving  any  one  of  his 
blessings,  when  he  perceived  that  they  had  faith  to  be  healed,  “ he  touched 
their  eyes.”  And  this  time  it  is  by  that  simple  touch  that  he  opens  those 
closed  eyes ; (Matt.  xx.  34 ;)  at  other  times  he  uses  as  the  conductors  of 
his  power,  and  as  helps  to  the  faith  of  those  wdio  should  be  healed,  some 
further  instruments, — the  clay  mingled  with  spittle,  (John  ix.  6,  7,)  or 
the  moisture  of  his  mouth  alone.  We  do  not,  I think,  anywhere  read  of 
his  opening  the  blind  eyes  simply  by  his  word,  although  of  course  that 
would  have  been  equally  easy  to  him.  The  words  which  accompany 
the  act  of  healing  are  remarkable — “ According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto 
you,” — remarkable  for  the  insight  which  they  give  us  into  the  relation 
of  man’s  faith  and  God’s  gift.  The  faith,  which  in  itself  is  nothing,  is 
yet  the  organ  of  receiving  every  thing.  It  places  the  man  in  relation 
with  the  divine  blessing ; of  no  esteem  in  itself,  but  only  in  its  relation 
to  its  object.  It  is  the  bucket  let  down  into  the  fountain  of  God’s  grace, 
without  which  the  man  could  not  draw  up  out  of  that  fountain ; the 
purse,  which  though  itself  of  the  coarsest  material,  does  yet  enrich  its 
owner  by  that  which  it  contains,  j- 

It  is  very  characteristic,  and  rests  on  very  deep  differences,  that  of 
the  Bomish  interpreters  almost  all,  indeed  I know  not  an  exception, 
should  excuse,  or  rather  applaud,  these  men  for  not  adhering  strictly  to 
Christ’s  command,  his  earnest,  almost  threatening,^  injunction  to  them, 
that  they  should  let  none  know  what  he  had  done, — that  the  expositors  of 
that  Church  of  will-worship  should  see  in  their  disobedience  the  over- 

* Calvin : Re  igitur  et  verbis  examinare  voluit  eorum  fidem : suspensos  enim 
tenens,  imo  praeteriens  quasi  non  exaudiat,  patientiae  ipsorum  experimentum  capit, 
et  qualem  in  ipsorum  animis  radicem  egerit  tides. 

f Faith,  the  bpyavov  hr/irriKov,  nothing  in  itself,  yet  every  thing,  because  it  places 
us  in  living  connection  with  him  in  whom  every  good  gift  is  stored.  Thus  on  this 
passage  Chemnitz  {Harm.  JEvang.,  c.  68) : Fides  est  instar  haustri  gratiae  coelestis  et 
salutis  nostrae,  quo  ex  inscrutabili  et  inexhausto  divinae  misericordiae  et  bonitatis  fonte, 
. ad  quern  aliter  penetrare  non  possumus,  haurimus  et  ad  nos  attrahimus  quod  nobis 
ealutare  est.  Calvin  {Inst,  iii.  11,  7) ; Fides  etiamsi  nullius  per  se  dignitatis  sit,  vel 
pretii,  nos  justificat,  Christum  afferendo,  sicut  olla  pecuniis  referta  hominem  locupletat. 

f ’Ev£j3pLfiT}<yaTO  avrolg.  Suidas  explains  eyQpiyaoOai  = yera  arret?^c  brillsc- 
Bai,yer>  avGTTjpoTTjrog  hunyav. 


162 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  TWO  BLIND. 


flowings  which  could  not  he  restrained  of  grateful  hearts,  and  not  there- 
fore  a fault  hut  a merit.  Some  indeed  of  the  ancients,  as  Theophylact, 
go  so  far  as  to  suppose  that  the  men  did  not  disobey  at  all  in  proclaiming 
the  miracle,  that  Christ  never  intended  them  to  preserve  his  precept 
about  silence ; hut  gave  it  out  of  humility,  being  best  pleased  when  it 
was  not  observed.*  But  the  Reformed,  whose  first  principle  is  to  take 
God’s  Word  as  absolute  rule  and  law,  and  to  worship  God  not  with  self- 
devised  services,  but  after  the  pattern  that  he  has  given  them,  stand  fast 
to  this,  that  obedience  is  better  than  sacrifice,  even  though  that  sacrifice 
may  appear  in  honor  of  God  himself ; and  see  in  this  publishing  of  the 
miracle,  after  the  prohibition  given,  a blemish  in  the  perfectness  of  their 
faith  who  did  it,  a fault,  though  a fault  into  which  they  only,  who  were 
full  of  gratitude  and  thankfulness,  could  have  fallen. 

* Thus  Aquinas  (Sumrn.  Theol. , 21  2®,  qu.  104,  art.  4) : Dominus  csecis  dixit  ut 
miraculum  occultarent,  non  quasi  intendens  eos  per  virtutem  divini  prsecepti  obligare ; 
sed  sicut  Gregorius  dicit  19  Moral.,  servis  suis  se  sequentibus  exemplum  dedit,  ut  ipsi 
quidem  virtutes  suas  occultare  desiderent,  et  tamen,  ut  alii  eorum  exemplo  proficiant 
prodantur  inviti.  C£  Maldonatus  in  loc. 


IX. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PARALYTIC. 

Matt.  ix.  1 — 8 ; Mark  ii.  1 — 12  ; Luke  y.  17 — 26.* 


It  was  at  Capernaum,  while  the  Lord  was  teaching  there,  and  on  an 
occasion  when  there  were  present  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law  from 
many  quarters,  some  of  whom  had  come  even  as  far  as  from  Jerusalem, 
(Luke  v.  17,)  that  this  healing  of  the  paralytic  took  place.f  It  might 
have  been  a kind  of  conference,  more  or  less  friendly  upon  the  part  of 
these,  which  had  brought  together  as  listeners  and  spectators  the  great 
multitude  of  whom  we  read,  a multitude  so  great  that  the  avenues  of 
approach  to  the  house  were  blocked  up ; “ there  was  no  room  to  receive 
them , no  not  so  much  as  about  the  doorf^  and  thus  no  opportunity,  by 
any  ordinary  way,  of  access  to  the  Lord.  (Matt.  xii.  46,  47.)  And  now 
some  who  arrived  late  with  their  sick,  who  brought  with  them  a poor 
paralytic,  “ could  not  come  nigh  unto  him  for  the  press.”  Only  the  two 
later  Evangelists  record  for  us  the  extraordinary  method  to  which  the 

* Chrysostom  mentions,  in  a sermon  upon  this  miracle,  (v.  3,  p.  37,  38,  Bened. 
edit.,)  that  many  in  his  day  confounded  this  history  with  that  of  the  impotent  man  at 
Bethesda, — a supposition  so  wholly  groundless  as  hardly  to  be  worth  the  complete 
refutation  which  he  gives  it,  showing  that  on  no  one  point  do  the  histories  agree.  In 
the  apocryphal  Evangelium  Nicodemi,  (see  Thilo’s  Cod.  Apocryph.,  v.  1,  p.  556,) 
there  is  a confusion  of  the  two  miracles. 

j-  The  words  of  St.  Luke,  “ The  power  of  the  Lord  was  present  to  heal  them ,”  are 
difficult,  avrovg  haying  no  antecedent  to  which  it  refers ; for  clearly  it  cannot  refer  to 
the  Pharisees  and  doctors  just  before  named.  There  was  nothing  in  them  which 
made  them  receptive  either  of  a bodily  or  a spiritual  healing.  Most  likely  it  is  pro- 
leptic ; the  Evangelist,  in  writing  thus,  has  already  in  his  mind  him,  though  yet  un 
named,  on  whom  that  power  was  put  forth.  W e must  take  yv  as  pregnant,  supply- 
ing kpya^o/j.£vrj,  or  some  such  word. 

\ Td  Trpbg  rrjv  Ovpav,  scil.  peprj  = tt podvpov,  vestibulum,  atrium. 


164 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PARALYTIC. 


bearers  of  the  suffering  man  (St.  Mark  tells  us  they  were  four)  were 
compelled  to  have  recourse,  for  bringing  him  before  the  notice  of  the 
great  healer  of  bodies  and  of  souls.  They  first  ascended  to  the  roof : 
this  was  not  so  difficult,  because  commonly  there  was  a flight  of  steps  on 
the  outside  of  the  house,  reaching  to  the  roof,  as  well  as,  or  sometimes 
instead  of,  an  internal  communication  of  the  same  kind.  Such  are  to  be 
seen  (I  have  myself  seen  them)  in  those  parts  of  the  south  of  Spain 
which  bear  a permanent  impress  of  Eastern  habits.  Our  Lord  assumes 
the  existence  of  such,  when  he  says,  “ Let  him  that  is  on  the  house-top 
not  come  down  to  take  any  thing  out  of  his  house,”  (Matt.  xxiv.  17 ;) 
he  is  to  take  the  nearest  and  shortest  way  of  escaping  into  the  country : 
but  he  could  only  avoid  the  necessity  of  descending  through  the  house 
by  the  existence  of  such  steps  as  these.*  Some  will  have  it,  that,  on  the 
present  occasion,  the  bearers  having  thus  reached  the  roof,  did  no  more 
than  let  down  their  sick  through  the  grating  or  trap-door,  which  already 
existed  therein,  (cf.  2 Kin.  i.  2 ;)  or,  at  most,  that  they  might  have  wi- 
dened such  an  aperture,  already  existing,  to  enable  them  to  let  down 
the  sick  man’s  bed.  Others, •(■  that  Jesus  was  sitting  in  the  open  court, 
round  which  the  houses  in  the  East  are  commonly  built,  and  that  to  this 
they  got  access  by  the  roof,  and  breaking  through  the  breastwork  or 
battlement  (Deut.  xxii.  8)  made  of  tiles,  which  guarded  the  roof,  and 
removing  the  linen  awning  which  was  stretched  over  the  court,  let  him 
down  in  the  midst  before  the  Lord.  But  there  seems  no  sufficient  rea- 
son for  departing  from  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words.  In  St.  Mark, 
at  least,  they  are  so  plain  and  clear,  that  we  can  suppose  nothing  else 
than  that  a part  of  the  actual  covering  of  the  roof  was  removed,  that  so 
the  bed  on  which  the  palsied  man  lay  might  be  let  down  before  the 
Lord.J  The  whole  circumstance  will  be  much  more  easily  conceived, 
and  present  fewer  difficulties,  when  we  keep  in  mind  that  it  was  probably 
the  upper  chamber,  (utfspwov,)  where  were  assembled  those  that  were 

* The  same  must  have  existed  in  a Roman  house,  from  a notice  we  have  in  Livy, 

1.  39,  c.  14.  A witness,  whom  it  is  most  important  to  preserve  from  being  tampered 
with,  is  shut  up  in  the  chamber  adjoining  the  roof,  (ccenaculum  super  sedes,) — and,  to 
make  all  sure,  scabs  ferentibus  in  publicam  obseratis,  aditu  in  sedes  verso.  (See 
Becker’s  Gallus,  V.  1,  p.  94.) 

f Shaw,  for  instance,  quoted  in  Rosenmuller,  [Alte  und  Neue  Morgenland,  v.  5,  p. 
129.)  He  makes  to  peaov  to  signify  the  central  court,  impluvium,  cava  sedium.  But 
against  this  use  of  tig  to  gsaov,  or  rather  for  the  common  one,  see  Luke  iv.  35 ; Mark 
iii.  3 ; xiv.  60.  And  so,  too,  Titus  Bostrensis  (in  Cramer’s  Catena) : ’Elnoi  6’  dv  Tig 
vTacdpov  elvai  totcov , elg  bv  did  t&v  icepd/uov  KaTeftiftaoav  tt)v  kMvt/v  tov  TtapalvTov, 
prjdsv  7r avTeXfig  Tr)g  GTeyijg  avaTpeipavTeg. 

£ Winer,  ( Real  Worterbuch , s.  v.  Dach ,)  who  weighs  the  other  explanations,  has 
tome  to  exactly  the  same  conclusion.  Cf.  De  Wette’s  Archceologie,  p.  118,  seg. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PAKALYTIC. 


165 


drawn  together  to  hear  the  Lord.  This,  as  the  most  retired,  (2  Kin.  iv. 
10,  LXX. ; Acts  ix.  37,)  and  probably  the  largest  room  in  the  house, 
extending  oftentimes  over  its  whole  area,  was  much  used  for  such  pur- 
poses as  that  which  now  drew  him  and  his  hearers  together.* * * §  (Acts  i. 
13;  xx.  8.) 

The  merciful  Son  of  man,  condescending  to  every  need  of  man,  and 
never  taking  ill  that  which  witnessed  for  an  earnest  faith  in  him,  even 
though,  as  here,  it  manifested  itself  in  a way  so  novel, — in  one,  too, 
which  must  have  altogether  disturbed  the  quiet  of  his  teaching,  saw  with 
an  eye  well-pleased  their  faith.  Had  we  only  the  account  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, we  should  hardly  understand  wherein  their  special  faith  consisted, 
— why  here,  more  than  in  many  similar  instances,  i should  have 
been  noted ; but  the  other  Evangelists  admirably  complete  that  which 
he  would  have  left  obscure.  They  tell  us  how  it  was  a faith  which 
pressed  through  hinderances,  and  was  not  to  be  turned  aside  by  difficul- 
ties, f By  “ their  faith”  many,  as  Jerome  and  Ambrose,  understand  the 
faith  of  the  bearers  only,  but  there  is  no  need  so  to  confine  the  words. 
To  them  the  praise  justly  was  due,|  but  no  doubt  the  sick  man  was 
approving  all  which  they  did,  or  it  would  not  have  been  done  : so  that 
Chrysostom,  with  greater  reason,  concludes,  that  it  was  alike  their  faith 
and  his  which  the  Lord  saw  and  rewarded.  And  this  faith,  as  in  the 
case,  of  all  whom  he  healed,  was  not  as  yet  the  reception  of  any  certain 
doctrines,  but  a deep  inward  sense  of  need,  and  of  Christ  as  the  one, 
who  only  could  meet  that  need. 

Beholding  this  faith,  the  Lord  addressed  him,  “ >SW,§  be  of  good 
cheer ; thy  sine  be  forgiven  thee:” — a striking  example  this  of  the  way 
in  which  the  Lord  gives  before  men  ask,  and  better  than  men  ask : for 
this  man  had  not  asked  any  thing,  save,  indeed,  in  the  dumb  asking  of 
that  earnest  effort  to  come  near  to  Jesus;  and  all  that  he  dared  to  ask 
even  in  that,  or  at  least  all  that  his  friends  and  bearers  hoped  for  him, 
was  that  his  body  might  be  healed.  Yet  there  was  no  doubt  in  himself 

* As  Yitringa  too  ( De  Bynag.,  p.  145,  seq.)  proves  by  abundant  examples. 

f Bengel : Per  omnia  tides  ad  Christum  penetrat.  Gerhard  {Harm.  Evang. , c. 
43) : Pictura  est  quomodo  in  tentationibus  et  calamitatibus  ad  Christum  nobis  co- 
nentur  intercludere  hominum  judicia,  quales  fuerunt  amici  Jobi,  et  qui  Ps.  iif.  3, 
dicunt : Non  est  salus  ipsi  in  Deo  ejus.  Item : Legis  judicium  et  proprise  conscientise 
accusationes.  Et  quomodo  per  ilia  omnia  tides  perrumpere  debeat,  ut  in  conspec- 
tum  Christi  Mediatoris  se  demittat. 

\ Tlvec  TUaroTaroL,  as  in  the  apocryphal  Evangelium  Nicodemi  they  are  called. 

§ In  St.  Luke,  “ Man,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.”  But  as  he  addresses  another 
down-smitten  soul,  “ Daughter,  be  of  good  comfort,”  (Matt.’  ix.  22,)  it  is  probable 
that  the  tenderer  appellation  here  also  found  place. 


166 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PARALYTIC. 


a deep  feeling  of  his  sickness  in  its  innermost  root;,  as  growing  out  of 
sin,  perhaps  as  the  penalty  of  some  especial  sin  whereof  he  was  con- 
scious ; and  some  expression  of  contrition,  some  exclamation  of  a peni- 
tent heart,  may  have  been  the  immediate  occasion  of  these  gracious 
words  of  forgiveness,  as,  indeed,  the  address,  “ S on,  be  of  good  cheer f 
would  seem  also  to  imply  that  he  was  one  evidently  burdened  and  cast 
down,  and,  as  the  Lord  saw,  with  more  than  the  weight  of  his  bodily 
sicknesses  and  sufferings.  We  shall  see  in  other  cases  how  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  follows  the  outward  healing : for  we  may  certainly  pre- 
sume that  such  a forgiveness  did  ensue  in  cases  such  as  that  of  the 
thankful  Samaritan,  of  the  impotent  man  who  was  first  healed,  and  at  a 
later  period  bidden  to  sin  no  more.  (John  v.  14.)  But  here  the  remis- 
sion of  sin  takes  the  precedence ; the  reason  no  doubt  being,  that  in  the 
sufferer’s  own  conviction  there  was  so  close  a connection  between  his 
sin  and  his  plague,  that  the  outer  healing  would  have  been  scarcely 
intelligible  to  him,  would  have  scarcely  carried  to  his  mind  the  sense  of 
a benefit,  unless  his  conscience  had  been  also  set  free ; perhaps  he  was 
incapable  even  of  receiving  it,  till  there  had  been  spoken  peace  to  his 
spirit.  James  v.  14,  15,  supplies  an  interesting  parallel,  in  the  connec- 
tion which  exists  there  also  between  the  raising  of  the  sick  and  the  for- 
giving of  his  sin.  The  others,  alluded  to  above,  who  had  a much 
slighter  sense  of  the  relations  between  sin  and  suffering,  were  not  first 
forgiven  and  then  healed ; but  their  thankfulness  for  their  bodily  healing 
was  used  to  make  them  receptive  of  that  better  blessing  which  Christ 
had  in  store  for  them. 

The  absolving  words,  “ Thy  sins  be  forgiven * theef  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  operative  merely,  as  a desire  that  it  might  be  so,  but  as  declara- 
tory of  a fact.  They  are  the  justification  of  the  sinner;  and,  as 
declaratory  of  that  which  takes  place  in  the  purposes  of  God,  so  also 
effectual,  shedding  abroad  the  sense  of  forgiveness  and  reconciliation  in 
the  sinner’s  heart.  For  God’s  justification  of  a sinner  is  not  merely  a 
word  spoken  about  a man,  but  a word  spoken  to  him  and  in  him ; not 
an  act  of  God’s,  immanent  in  himself,  but  transitive  upon  the  sinner.  In 
it  there  is  the  love  of  God,  and  so  the  consciousness  of  that  love,  shed 

* 'A Qeuvrcu.  (Cf.  Luke  vii.  48 ; 1 John  ii.  12.)  The  old  grammarians  are  not 
at  one  in  the  explanation  of  this  form.  Some  make  it  = ufiuvTca,  2 aor.  conj.,  as  in 
Homer  a<j>eij  for  a<j>rj.  Thus  Eustathius ; but  others  more  rightly  explain  it  as  the 
prseter.  indie,  pass.,  — d(j>elvrai,  though  of  these  again  some  find  in  it  an  Attic,  others, 
more  correctly,  a Doric  form.  Cf.  Herod.,  1.  2,  c.  165,  aveuvrcu.  This  perfect  passive 
will  then  stand  in  connection  with  the  perfect  active  a^su/ca  for  a^ehca.  (Winer’s 
GhrammatiTc,  p.  77.) 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  PAEALYTIC. 


167 


abroad  in  his  heart*  on  whose  behalf  the  absolving  decree  has  been 
uttered.  The  murmurers  and  cavillers  understood  rightly  that  Christ, 
so  speaking,  did  not  merely  wish  and  desire  that  this  man’s  sins  might 
be  forgiven  him ; and  that  he  did  not,  as  does  now  the  Church,  in  the 
name  of  another  and  wielding  a delegated  power,  but  in  his  own  name, 
forgive  the  man  his  sins.  They  had  also  a right  insight  into  the  mean- 
ing of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  itself,  that  it  is  a divine  prerogative ; that, 
as  no  man  can  remit  a debt  save  he  to  whom  the  debt  is  due,  so  no  one 
can  forgive  sin  save  he  against  whom  all  sin  is  committed,  that  is,  God; 
and  out  of  this  feeling,  true  in  itself,  but  most  false  in  their  present  ap- 
plication of  it,  they  said,  “ This  man  blasphemeth .” 

It  is  well  worth  our  while  to  note,  as  Olshausen  here  calls  us  to  do, 
the  deep  insight  into  the  relations  of  God  and  the  creature,  which  is 
involved  in  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  blasphemy.  Profane  an- 
tiquity knew  nothing  like  it ; with  it  “ to  blaspheme”  meant  only  to 
speak  something  evil  of  a person, f (a  use  which  indeed  is  not  foreign  to 

* It  will  be  seen  above  that  I have  used  Rom.  v.  5,  in  a different  sense  from  that 
in  which  it  is  far  too  often  used.  The  history  of  the  exposition  of  the  verse  is  curious, 
and  is  not  altogether  foreign  to  the  subject  in  hand.  To  Augustine’s  influence,  no 
doubt,  we  mainly  owe  the  loss  for  many  centuries  of  its  true  interpretation,  which 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Ambrose,  men  every  one  of  them  less  penetrated  with  the 
spirit  of  St.  Paul  than  he  was,  had  yet  rightly  seized ; but  which,  by  his  influence 
and  frequent  use  of  it  in  another  sense,  was  so  completely  lost  sight  of,  that  it  was 
not  recovered  anew  till  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  He  read  in  his  Latin,  Charitas 
Dei  diffusa  est  in  cordibus  nostris  per  Spiritum  Sanctum,  qui  datus  est  nobis.  Had 
he  read,  as  Ambrose  reads  i ( Be  Spir.  Sane.,  1.  1,  c.  8,  § 88,)  and  as  it  should  have 
been,  effusa , (eiacexvTat  is  the  original  word,)  it  is  probable  he  would  have  been  saved 
from  his  mistake  : for  the  comparison  which  would  have  been  thus  suggested  with 
such  passages  as  Acts  ii.  11 ; Isai.  xxxii.  15 ; Ezek.  xxxvi,  25  ; Joel  ii.  28,  in  all  which 
God’s  large  and  free  communication  of  himself  to  men  is  set  forth  under  the  image  of 
a stream  from  heaven  to  earth,  would  have  led  him  to  see  that  this  love  of  God 
which  is  poured  out  in  our  hearts,  and  is  here  declared  to  be  our  ground  of  confidence 
in  him,  is  his  love  to  us,  and  not  ours  to  him : that  the  verse  is  in  fact  to  find  its  ex- 
planation from  ver.  8,  and  affirms  the  same  thing.  The  passage  is  of  considerable 
dogmatic  importance.  The  perverted  interpretation  became  in  after  times  one  of 
the  mainstays,  indeed  by  far  the  chiefest  one,  of  the  Romish  theory  of  an  infused 
righteousness  being  the  ground  of  our  confidence  towards  God : which  the  true  ex- 
planation excludes,  yet  at  the  same  time  affirms  this  great  truth,  that  God’s  justifi- 
cation of  the  sinner  is  not,  as  the  Romanists  say  we  hold  it,  an  act  merely  declaratory, 
leaving  the  sinner  as  to  his  real  state  where  it  found  him,  but  a transitive  act,  being 
not  alone  negatively  a forgiveness  of  sin,  but  positively  an  imparting  of  the  spirit  of 
adoption,  with  the  sense  of  reconciliation,  and  all  else  into  which  God’s  love  received 
and  believed  will  unfold  itself 

•j-  B?iac(j)T]p.eiv  as  opposed  to  eixftjj/uelv. 


168 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  PAEALYTIO. 


the  Scripture,)  and  then,  to  speak  something  of  an  evil  omen.  Only 
the  monotheistic  religion  included  in  blasphemy  not  merely  outward 
words  of  cursing  and  outrage  against  the  Name  of  God,  but  all  snatch- 
ings  on  the  part  of  the  creature  at  honors  which  of  right  belonged  only 
to  the  Creator.  (Matt.  xxvi.  65;  John  x.  36.)  If  he  who  Ihus  spake 
had  not  been  the  only-begotten  Son  of  the  Father,  the  sharer  in  all  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Godhead,  he  would  indeed  have  blasphemed,  as  they 
deemed,  when  he  thus  spake.  Their  sin  was  not  that  they  accused  him, 
a man,  of  blasphemy ; but  that  their  eyes  were  so  blinded  that  they 
could  not  recognize  any  glory  in  him  higher  than  man’s ; that  the  light 
shined  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.* 

It  is  not  for  nothing  that  it  is  said  that  Jesus  perceived  “ in  his  Spirit ” 
that  such  thoughts  were  stirring  in  their  hearts.  (Mark  ii.  8.)  These 
words,  "in  his  Spirit ” are  not  superfluous,  but  his  knowing  faculty, 
that  whereby  he  saw  through  the  thoughts  and  counsels  of  hearts,  and 
knew  what  was  in  man,  is  here  attributed  to  his  divine  Spirit,  f And 
these  counsels  he  revealed  to  them ; and  in  this  way  first  he  gave  them 
to  understand  that  he  was  more  than  they  esteemed, J since  thoughts  of 
hearts  were  open  and  manifest  to  him,  while  yet  it  is  God  only  who 
searches  hearts,  (1  Sam.  xvi.  7 ; 1 Chron.  xxviii.  9 ; 2 Chron.  vi.  30 ; 
Jer.  xvii.  10,)  it  is  only  the  divine  Word  of  whom  it  can  be  said,  that 
“he  is  a discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart.”  (Heb. 
iv.  12.) 

Nor  is  it  merely  generally  that  he  lays  bare  their  thoughts  of  him, 
as  being  hard  and  evil,  but  he  indicates  the  exact  line  which  those 
thoughts  were  taking ; for  the  charge  which  they  made  against  him  in 
their  hearts,  was  not  merely  that  he  took  to  himself  divine  attributes, 
but  that,  doing  so,  he  at  the  same  time  kept  on  the  safe  side  as  regarded 
detection,  taking  those  wherein,  by  the  very  nature  of  things,  it  was  not 
possible  to  prove  him  a false  claimant.  They  were  murmuring,  no  doubt, 
within  themselves,  “ These  honors  are  easily  snatched ; any  man  may 
go  about  the  world  claiming  this  power,  and  saying  to  men,  ‘ Your  sins 
are  forgiven  you but  where  is  the  evidence  that  this  word  is  allowed  and 

* Augustine  ( Enarr . 3a  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  25) : Quis  potest  dimittere  peccata  [ini- 
quiunt]  nisi  solus  Deus  ? Et  quia  ille  erat  Deus,  talia  cogitantes  audiebat.  Hoc  verum 
de  Deo  cogitabant,  sed  Deum  prsesentem  non  videbant.  Fecit  ergo  ....  quod 
viderent,  et  dedit  quod  crederent. 

■j*  Grotius : Non  ut  Propbetse  per  afflatum,  sed  suo  Spiritu. 

\ Gerbard  {Harm.  Evang.,  c.  43) : Jesus  igitur  exponens  Pbarisseis  quid  taciti  apud 
se  in  intimis  cordium  recessibus  cogitabant,  ostendit  se  plus  esse  quam  liominem ; et 
e&dem  potestate,  divina  scilicet,  qua  seer  eta  cordium  videat,  se  etiam  peccata  remitter® 
posse. 


THE  HEALING  OP  THE  PAEALYTIC. 


169 


ratified  in  heaven ; that  what  is  thus  spoken  on  earth  is  sealed  in  hea- 
ven ? In  the  very  nature  of  the  power  which  this  man  claims,  he  is 
secure  from  detection ; for  this  releasing  of  a man  from  the  condemna- 
tion of  his  sin  is  an  act  wrought  in  the  inner  spiritual  world,  attested  by 
no  outer  and  visible  sign ; therefore  it  is  easily  claimed,  since  it  cannot 
be  disproved.”  And  our  Lord’s  answer,  meeting  this  evil  thought  in 
their  hearts,  is  in  fact  this : 44  You  accuse  me  that  I am  claiming  a safe 
power,  since,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  benefit  bestowed,  no  sign  follows, 
nothing  to  bear  witness  whether  I have  challenged  it  rightfully  or  not ; 
but  now  I will  put  myself  to  a more  decisive  proof.  I will  speak  a 
word,  I will  claim  a power,  which  if  I claim  falsely,  I shall  be  convinced 
upon  the  instant  to  bean  impostor  and  a deceiver.  I will  say  to  this  sick 
man,  4 Rise  up  and  walk  ;’  by  the  effects,  as  they  follow  or  do  not  follow, 
you  may  judge  whether  I have  a right  to  say  to  him,  4 Thy  sins  be  for- 
given thee?  ” * 

In  our  Lord’s  argument  it  must  be  carefully  noted  that  he  does  not 
ask,  Which  is  easiest,  to  forgive  sins  or  to  raise  a sick  man?  for  it  could 
not  be  affirmed  that  that  of  forgiving  was  easier  than  this  of  healing ; 
but,  44  Which  is  easiest,  to  claim  this  power  or  to  claim  that ; to  say , 
Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee,  or  to  say , Ari^e  and  walk  ? That  is  easiest, 
and  I will  now  prove  my  right  to  say  it,  by  saying  with  effect  and  with 
an  outward  consequence  setting  its  seal  to  my  truth,  the  harder  word, 
Arise  and  walk.  By  doing  that,  which  is  capable  of  being  put  to  the 
proof,  I will  vindicate  my  right  and  power  to  do  that  which,  in  its  very 
nature,  is  incapable  of  being  proved.  By  these  visible  tides  of  God’s 
grace  I will  give  you  to  know  in  what  direction  the  great  under  currents 
of  his  love  are  setting,  and  that  both  are  obedient  to  my  word.  From 
this  which  I will  now  do  openly  and  before  you  all,  you  may  conclude 
that  it  is  no  4 robbery’  (Phil.  ii.  6)  upon  my  part  to  claim  also  the  pow- 

* Corn,  a Lapide : Qui  dicit,  Remitto  tibi  peccata,  mendacii  argui  non  potest,  sive 
ea  revera  remittit,  sive  non,  quia  nec  peccatum  nec  peccati  remissio  oculis  videri 
potest;  qui  autem  dicit  paralytico,  Surge  et  ambula,  se  et  famam  suam  evidenti 
falsitatis  periculo  exponit ; re  ipsa  enim  si  paralyticus  non  surgat,  falsitatis,impos- 
turse  et  mendacii  ab  omnibus  arguetur  et  convince  tur. . . . Unde  signanter  Christus 
non  ait,  Quid  est  facilius,  remittere  peccata,  an  sanare  paralyticum,  sed  dicere, 
Dimittuntur  tibi  peccata,  an  dicere,  Surge  et  ambula?  Jerome  (Comm,  in  Matth., 
in  loc.) : Utrum  sint  paralytico  peccata  dimissa,  solus  noverat,  qui  dimittebat.  Surge 
autem  et  ambula,  tam  ille  qui  consurgebat,  quam  hi  qui  consurgentem  videbant  ap- 
probare  poterant.  Fit  igitur  camale  signum,  ut  probetur  spirituale.  Bernard  (D« 
Divers .,  Serm.  25):  Blasphemare  me  blaspbematis,  et  quasi  ad  excusandum  visibilia 
curationis  virtutem,  me  invisibilem  dicitis  usurpare.  Sed  ego  vos  potius  blasphemos 
esse  convinco,  signo  probans  visibili  invisibilem  potestatem. 


170 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PAEALYTTC. 


er  of  forgiving  men  their  sins.”* * * §  Thus,  to  use  a familiar  illustration  of 
our  Lord’s  argument,  it  would  be  easier  for  a man,  equally  ignorant  of 
French  and  Chinese,  to  claim  to  know  the  last  than  the  first ; not  that 
the  language  itself  is  easier ; but  that,  in  the  one  case,  multitudes 
could  disprove  his  claim ; and,  in  the  other,  hardly  a scholar  or  two  in 
the  land. 

In  the  words,  “power  on  earth”  there  lies  a tacit  opposition  to 
“ power  in  heaven .”  “ This  power  is  not  exercised,  as  you  deem,  only 

by  God  in  heaven : but  also  by  the  Son  of  man  upon  earth,  j-  He  has 
brought  it  down  with  him  here,  so  that  it,  which,  as  you  rightly  assert, 
is  only  exercised  by  him  who  dwelleth  in  the  heavens,  has  yet,  in  the 
person  of  the  Son  of  man,  descended  also  upon  earth.J  Here  also  is 
one  who  can  speak,  and  it  is  done.”  The  only  thing  which  at  all  sur- 
prises, is  our  Lord’s  claiming  this  power  as  the  “ Son  of  man”  It  is 
remarkable,  since,  at  first  sight,  it  might  appear  that  this  of  forgiving 
sins  being  a divine  attribute,  the  present  was  not  the  natural  time  for 
specially  naming  himself  by  this  name,  it  being  as  the  Son  of  God,  and 
not  as  the  Son  of  man,  that  he  remitted  sins.§  The  Alexandrian  fathers, 
in  their  conflict  with  the  Nestorians,  made  use  of  this  passage  in  proof 
of  the  entire  transference  which  there  was,  of  all  the  properties  of 
Christ’s  divine' nature  to  his  human;  so  that  whatever  one  had,  was  so 

* Maldonatus,  with  his  usual  straightforward  meeting  of  a difficulty,  observes 
here,  Poterit  autem  aliquis  merito  dubitare,  quomodo  Christus  quod  probandum 
erat,  concludat.  Nam  si  remittere  peccata  erat  re  vera  difficilius,  dum  experientia 
curati  paralytici  docet  se  quod  re  ipsa  facilius  est,  posse  facere : non  ben&  probat 
posse  et  se  peccata  remittere,  quod  erat  difficilius.  Respondeo,  Christum  tantiim 
probare  voluisse  sibi  esse  credendum,  quod  bene  probat  ab  eo,  cujus  probatio  erat 
difficilior ; quasi  dicat,  Si  non  fallo  cum  dico  paralytico,  Surge  et  ambula,  ubi  diffi- 
cilius est  probare  me  verum  dicere,  cur  creditis  me  fallere  cum  dico,  Remittantur 
tibi  peccata  tua  ? Denique  ex  re,  quae  effectu  probari  potest,  in  re,  quae  probari  non 
potest,  sibi  fidem  facit.  Augustine  {Exp.  ad  Rom.  § 23) : Declaravit  ideo  se  ilia  fa- 
cere  in  corporibus,  ut  crederetur  animas  peccatorum  dimissione  liberare ; id  est,  ut 
de  potestate  visibili  potestas  invisibilis  mereretur  fidem. 

f We  have  in  Matt.  xvi.  19  ; xviii.  18,  parallels  to  this  passage  in  their  opposition 
of  “ on  earth”  and  “ in  heaven  but,  at  the  same  time,  inadequate  parallels,  since  the 
Church  binds  and  looses  by  no  inherent,  but  by  a committed,  power. 

$ It  has  been  beautifully  said  of  the  Church,  Facit  in  terris  opera  ccelorum.  This 
of  course  must  be  first  and  eminently  true  of  him  in  whom  the  Church  consists,  and 
the  words  find  their  fulfilment  here. 

§ Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  10)  supposes  that  by  the  use  of  this  term  our 
Lord  wishes  to  throw  back  his  hearers  upon  that  one  Old  Testament  passage,  (Dan. 
vii.  13,)  in  which  it  occurs,  and  in  which  the  mystery  of  all  judgment,  and  therefore 
of  all  absolution,  being  in  a man,  is  indicated.  Cf.  John  v.  27. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  PAEALYTIC. 


171 


far  common  that  it  might  also  be  predicated  of  the  other.'* * * §  It  is  quite 
true  that  had  not  the  two  natures  been  indissolubly  knit  together  in  a 
single  person,  no  such  language  could  have  been  used;  yet  I should 
rather  suppose  that  “ Son  of  man”  being  the  standing  title  whereby  the 
Lord  was  well  pleased  to  designate  himself,  bringing  out  by  it  that  he 
was  at  once  one  with  humanity,  and  the  crown  of  humanity,  he  does  not 
so  use  it  that  the  title  is  in  every  instance  to  be  pressed,  but  at  times 
simply  as  equivalent  to  Messiah. 

Having  said  this  much  to  the  gainsayers,  he  turns  to  the  poor  man 
with  the  words,  “Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,- j*  and  go  unto  thine  house, in 
his  person  setting  his  seal  to  all  the  prerogatives  which  he  had  claimed ; 
so  that  this  miracle  is  eminently  what  indeed  all  are,  though  it  is  not 
equally  brought  out  in  all,  “ a sign,”  an  outward  sign  of  an  inward 
truth,  a link  between  this  visible  and  a higher  and  invisible  world. 
“And  immediately  he  arose,  took  up  the  bed,§  and  went  forth  before  them 
all;”  they  who  before  blocked  up  his  path,  now  making  way  for  him, 
and  allowing  free  egress  from  the  assembly. 

Concerning  the  effects  of  this  miracle  on  the  Pharisees,  the  narration 
is  silent,  and  this,  probably,  because  there  was  nothing  good  to  tell ; — 
but  of  the  people,  far  less  hardened  against  the  truth,  far  more  receptive 
of  divine  impressions,  we  are  told  “ they  were  all  amazed,  and  glorified 
God ;”  altogether  according  to  the  intention  of  the  Saviour,  praising 
the  author  of  all  good  for  the  revelation  of  his  glory  in  his  Son.  (Matt, 
v.  16.)  There  was  a true  sense  upon  their  part  of  the  significance  of 
this  fact,  in  their  thankful  exultation  that  God  “ had  given  such  power 
unto  men”  Without  supposing  that  they  very  accurately  explained  to 
themselves,  or  could  have  explained  to  others,  their  feeling,  yet  they  felt 
rightly  that  what  was  given  to  one  man,  to  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  was 

* See  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  Cramer’s  Catena,  in  loc. 

f K paj3(3aTog  = grabatus  (in  Luke,  kKiviSiov)  a mean  and  vile  pallet  used  by  the 
poorest  = gkl/ltcovq,  amidvTrjQ.  It  is  a Macedonian  word,  and  was  entirely  rejected  by 
Greek  Purists.  (See  Becker’s  Charikles,  v.  2,  p.  121.)  In  relation  to  this,  Sozomen 
tells  a curious  story  of  a bishop  in  Cyprus,  who,  teaching  the  people  from  this  scrip- 
ture, and  having  to  repeat  the  Lord’s  words,  substituted  OKLyirovg  for  Kf>d(3(3aTog,  and 
was  rebuked  by  another  bishop  present,  who  asked  him  if  the  word  which  Christ 
used  was  not  good  enough  for  him  to  use. 

t Compare  Isaiah’s  words,  (xxxv.iii.  LXX,)  when  he  is  recounting  the  promises 
of  Messiah’s  time : 'I oxvaare,  X£lpeC  aveiyevai,  sal  yovara  ’KagaXtkvyiva. 

§ Arnobius,  (Con.  Gen.,  1.  1,  c.  45,)  speaking  generally  of  Christ’s  healings,  but, 
of  course,  with  allusion  to  this,  magnifies  the  contrast  of  his  so  lately  being  carried 
on,  and  now  carrying,  his  bed  : Suos  referebant  lectos  alienis  paulo  ante  cervicibus 
lati. 


172 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  PARALYTIC. 


given  for  the  sake  of  all,  and  ultimately  to  all — that  it  was  indeed  given 
11  unto  men;” — that  he  possessed  these  powers  as  the  true  Head  and 
Representative  of  the  race,  and  therefore  that  these  gifts  to  him  were 
a rightful  subject  of  gladness  and  thanksgiving  for  every  member  of 
that  race. 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER. 


Matt.  viii.  1 — 4 ; Mark  i.  40 — 45 ; Luke  v.  12 — 16. 


It  is  said  in  one  place  concerning  the  apostles’  preaching,  that  the 
Lord  confirmed  their  word  with  signs  following.  (Mark  xvi.  20.) 
Here  we  have  a very  remarkable  example  of  his  doing  the  same  in  the 
case  of  his  own.  For,  according  to  the  arrangement  of  the  events  of 
the  Lord’s  life  which  I follow,  and  according  to  the  connection  of  the 
events  as  it  appears  in  St.  Matthew,  it  is  after  that  most  memorable  dis- 
course of  his  upon  the  Mount,  that  this  and  other  of  his  most  notable 
miracles  find  place.  It  is  as  though  he  would  set  his  seal  to  all  that  he 
has  taught ; — would  approve  himself  to  be  this  prophet  having  right  to 
hold  the  language  which  there  he  has  held,  to  teach  as  one  having 
authority.*  He  had  scarcely  ended,  ere  the  opportunity  for  this 
occurred.  As  he  was  descending  from  the  mountain,  u there  came  a 
leper  and  worshipped  him ,”  one,  in  the  language  of  St.  Luke,  “full  of 
leprosy ,”  so  that  it  was  not  a spot  here  and  there,  but  the  disease  had 
spread  over  his  whole  body : he  was  leprous  from  head  to  foot.  He 
had  ventured,  it  may  be,  to  linger  about  the  outskirts  of  the  listening 
crowd,  and  now  was  not  deterred  by  the  severity  of  the  closing  sentences 
of  Christ’s  discourse,  from  coming  to  claim  the  blessings  which  at  its 
opening  were  proclaimed  for  the  suffering  and  the  mourning.  Here, 
however,  before  proceeding  to  treat  more  particularly  of  this  cure,  it 
may  be  good,  once  for  all,  since  the  cleansing  of  lepers  comes  so  fre- 
quently forward  in  the  Gospel  history,  to  say  a few  words  concerning 
that  dreadful  disorder,  and  the  meaning  of  the  uncleanness  which  was 
attached  to  it. 

* Jerome  (in  loc.) : Rect6  post  praedicationem  atque  doctrinam  signorum  offertur 
occasio,  ut  per  virtutum  miracula  praeteritus  apud  audientes  sermo  firmetur. 


174 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  LEPEE. 


And  first,  a few  words  may  be  needful  in  regard  of  a misapprehension, 
which  we  find  in  such  writers  as  Michaelis,  and  in  all  indeed  who  can  see 
in  the  Levitical  ordinances  little  more  for  the  most  part  than  regulations 
of  police  or  of  a board  of  health,  or  at  the  best,  rules  for  the  well  order- 
ing of  an  earthly  society ; who  will  not  recognize  in  these  ordinances  the 
training  of  man  into  a sense  of  the  cleaving  taint  which  is  his  from  his 
birth,  into  a sense  of  impurity  and  separation  from  God,  and  thus  into  a 
longing  after  purity  and  re-union  with  him.  I allude  to  the  common 
misapprehension  that  leprosy  was  catching  from  one  person  to  another ; 
and  that  they  who  were  suffering  under  it  were  so  carefully  secluded 
from  their  fellow-men,  lest  they  might  communicate  the  poison  of  the 
disease  to  them  ; as  in  like  manner  that  the  torn  garment,  the  covered 
lip,  the  cry,  “ Unclean,  unclean,”  (Lev.  xiii.  45,)  were  warnings  to  others 
that  they  should  keep  aloof,  lest  unawares  touching  the  lepers,  or  draw- 
ing into  too  great  a nearness,  they  should  become  partakers  of  their  dis- 
ease. A miserable  emptying  this,  as  we  shall  see,  of  the  meaning  of 
these  ordinances.*  All  those  who  have  examined  into  the  matter  the 
closest  are  nearly  of  one  consent,  that  the  sickness  was  incommunicable 
by  ordinary  contact  from  one  person  to  another.  A leper  might  trans- 
mit it  to  his  children, f or  the  mother  of  a leper’s  children  might  take  it 
from  him ; but  it  was  by  no  ordinary  contact  transferable  from  one  per- 
son to  another. 

All  the  notices  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  other  Jewish 
books,  confirm  this  view,  that  it  was  in  no  respect  a mere  sanitary  regu- 
lation. Thus,  where  the  law  of  Moses  was  not  observed,  no  such  exclu- 
sion necessarily  found  place ; Naaman  the  leper  commanded  the  armies 
of  Syria,  (2  Kin.  v.  1,)  Gehazi,  with  his  leprosy  that  never  should  be 
cleansed,  talked  familiarly  with  the  king  of  apostate  Israel.  (2  Kin.  viii.  5.) 
And  even  where  the  law  of  Moses  was  in  force,  the  stranger  and  the  so- 
journer were  expressly  exempted  from  the  ordinances  in  relation  to  lepro- 
sy ; which  could  not  have  been,  had  the  disease  been  contagious,  and  the 
motives  of  the  leper’s  exclusion  been  not  religious  but  civil,  since  the 

jirven  Michaelis,  greatly  as  he  loves  to  find  a trivial  explanation  for  each  ordi- 
nance of  the  Mosaic  law,  yet  allows  ( Mos . Recht.,  v.  4,  p.  255,)  that  this  cannot  have 
been  the  object  of  these  ; but  explains  them  as  warnings  to  all  other  men  lest  they 
should  unawares  come  on  so  disgusting  a spectacle  as  the  leper  would  present.  But 
Scripture  neither  flatters  nor  knows  any  thing  of  such  hard-hearted  sentimentalities 
as  these.  Rather  the  poet  expresses  the  true  feeling  which  it  would  bring  about  in 
us,  when  he  exclaims, — 

“But  welcome  fortitude  and  patient  cheer, 

And  frequent  sight  of  what  is  to  be  borne P 

| See  Robinson’s  Biblical  Researches,  v.  1,  p.  359. 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER. 


175 


danger  of  the  spreading  of  the  disease  would  have  been  equal  in  their 
ease  and  in  that  of  native  Israelites.*  How,  moreover,  should  the  Le- 
vitical  priests,  had  the  disease  been  this  creeping  infection,  have  them- 
selves escaped  the  disease,  obliged  as  they  were  by  their  very  office  to 
submit  the  leper  to  such  actual  handling  and  closest  examination? 
Lightfoot  can  only  explain  this  by  supposing  in  their  case  a perpetual 
miracle. 

But  no ; the  ordinances  concerning  leprosy  had  quite  a different  and 
a far  deeper  significance,  into  which  it  will  be  needful  a little  to  enter. 
It  is  clear  that  the  same  principle  which  made  all  that  had  to  do  with 
death,  as  mourning,  a grave,  a corpse,  the  occasions  of  a ceremonial 
uncleanness,  inasmuch  as  all  these  were  signs  and  consequences  of  sin, 
might  in  like  manner,  and  with  a perfect  consistency,  have  made  every 
sickness  an  occasion  of  uncleanness,  each  of  these  being  also  death  be- 
ginning, partial  death — echoes  in  the  body  of  that  terrible  reality,  sin  in 
the  soul.  But  instead  of  this,  in  a gracious  sparing  of  man,  and  not 
pushing  the  principle  to  the  uttermost,  God  took  but  one  sickness,  one 
of  these  visible  outcomings  of  a tainted  nature,  in  which  to  testify  that 
evil  was  not  from  him,  that  evil  could  not  dwell  with  him  ; he  took  but 
one,  with  which  to  link  this  teaching,  and  that  it  might  serve  in  this  region 
of  man’s  life  as  the  substratum  for  the  training  of  his  people  into  the  recog- 
nition of  a clinging  impurity,  which  needed  a Pure  and  a Purifier  to 
overcome  and  expel,  and  which  no  method  short  of  his  taking  of  our 
flesh  could  drive  out.  And  leprosy,  which  was  indeed  the  sickness  of 
sicknesses,  was  through  these  Levitical  ordinances  selected  of  God  from 
the  whole  host  of  maladies  and  diseases  which  had  broken  in  upon  man’s 
body ; to  the  end  that,  bearing  his  testimony  against  it,  he  might  bear 
his  testimony  against  that  out  of  which  it  and  all  other  sicknesses  grew, 
against  sin,  as  not  from  him,  as  grievous  in  his  sight ; and  the  sickness 
itself  also  as  grievous,  not  for  itself,  but  because  it  was  a visible  mani- 
festation, a direct  consequence,  of  the  inner  disharmony  of  man’s  spirit, 

* See  all  this  abundantly  proved  in  pp.  1086 — 1089  of  the  learned  dissertation 
by  Rhenferd,  De  Leprd  Cutis  Hebrceormn , which  is  to  be  found  in  Meuschen’s  Nov. 
Test,  ex  Talm.  illust.,  p.  1051.  He  concludes  his  disquisition  on  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject with  these  words : Ex  quibus,  nisi  nos  omnia  fallunt,  cert6  concludimus,  prsecipuis 
Judseorum  magistris,  traditionumque  auctoribus  nunquam  in  mentem  incidisse  ullam 
de  lepras  contagio  suspicionem,  omnemque  hanc  de  contagiosa  lepra  sententiam,  pluri- 
mis  antiquissimisque  scriptoribus  aequ£  ac  Mosi  plane  fuisse  incognitam.  Compare 
the  extract  from  Balsamon,  in  Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.  leirpog,  where  speaking  of  the 
customs  of  the  Eastern  Church,  he  says,  “ They  frequent  our  churches  and  eat  with 
us,  in  nothing  hindered  by  the  disease.”  In  like  manner  there  was  a place  for  them, 
though  a place  apart,  in  the  synagogue. 


176 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER. 


a commencement  of  the  death,  which  through  disobedience  to  God’s  per- 
fect will,  had  found  entrance  into  a nature  made  by  God  for  immortality. 

And  terrible  indeed,  as  might  be  expected,  was  that  disease,  round 
which  this  solemn  teaching  revolved.  Leprosy  was  indeed  nothing 
short  of  a living  death,  a poisoning  of  the  springs,  a corrupting  of  all 
the  humors,  of  life ; a dissolution  little  by  little  of  the  whole  body,  so 
that  one  limb  after  another  actually  decayed  and  fell  away.  Aaron 
exactly  describes  the  appearance  which  the  leper  presented  to  the  eyes 
of  the  beholders,  when,  pleading  for  Miriam,  he  says,  “ Let  her  not  be 
as  one  dead,  of  whom  the  flesh  is  half  consumed  when  he  cometh  out 
of  his  mother’s  womb.”  (Num.  xii.  12.)  The  disease,  moreover,  was 
incurable  by  the  art  and  skill  of  man  ;*  not  that  the  leper  might  not 
return  to  health ; for,  however  rare,  such  cases  are  yet  contemplated  in 
the  Levitical  law.  But  then  the  leprosy  left  the  man,  not  in  obedience 
to  any  outward  means  of  healing  which  had  been  applied  by  men,  but 
purely  and  merely  through  the  good  will  and  mercy  of  God.  This 
helplessness  of  man  in  the  matter,  is  recognized  in  the  speech  of  the 
king  of  Israel,  who,  when  Naaman  is  sent  to  him  that  he  may  heal  him, 
exclaims,  “ Am  I God,  to  kill  and  to  make  alive,  that  this  man  doth 
send  unto  me  to  recover  a man  of  his  leprosy  ?”  (2  Kin.  v.  7.)  The 

leper,  thus  fearfully  bearing  about  in  the  body  the  outward  and  visible 
tokens  of  sin  in  the  soul,  was  handled  throughout  as  a sinner,  as  one  in 
whom  sin  had  reached  its  highest  manifestation,  that  is,  as  one  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins.  He  was  himself  a dreadful  parable  of  death.  It 
is  evident  that  Moses  intended  that  he  should  be  so  contemplated  by  all 
the  ordinances  which  he  gave  concerning  him.  The  leper  was  to  bear 
about  the  emblems  of  death,  (Lev.  xiii.  45,)  the  rent  garments,  that  is, 
mourning  garments,  he  mourning  for  himself  as  for  one  dead ; the  head 
bare,  as  they  were  wont  to  have  it  who  were  in  communion  with  the 
dead,  (Num.  vi.  9 ; Ezek.  xxiv.  17 ;)  and  the  lip  covered.  (Ezek. 
xxiv.  17.  )f 

In  the  restoration,  too,  of  a leper,  exactly  the  same  instruments  of 
cleansing  were  in  use,  the  cedar  wood,  the  hyssop,  and  the  scarlet,  as 
were  used  for  the  cleansing  of  one  defiled  through  a dead  body,  or  aught 
pertaining  to  death,  and  which  were  never  in  use  upon  any  other  occa- 
sion. (Compare  Num.  xix.  6,  13,  18,  with  Lev.  xiv.  4 — 7.)  No  doubt 

* Cyril  of  Alexandria  calls  it  nadog  ovk  laai/xov. 

1 Spencer  calls  him  well,  sepulcrum  ambulans  ; and  Calvin  : Pro  mortuis  habiti 
sunt,  quos  lepra  a sacro  caetu  abdicabat.  And  when  through  the  Crusades  leprosy 
had  been  introduced  into  Western  Europe,  it  was  usual  to  clothe  the  leper  in  a 
shroud,  and  to  say  for  him  the  masses  for  the  dead. 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER. 


m 


when  David  exclaims,  “ Purge  me  with  hyssop , and  I shall  be  clean,” 
(Ps.  li.  7,)  he  in  this  allusion,  looking  through  the  outward  to  the  in- 
ward, even  to  the  true  blood  of  sprinkling,  contemplates  himself  as  a 
spiritual  leper,  as  one  whose  sin  had  been,  while  he  lived  in  it,  a sin 
unto  death,  as  one  nefeding  therefore  absolute  and  entire  restoration  from 
the  very  furthest  degree  of  separation  from  God.  And  being  this  sign  and 
token  of  sin,  and  of  sin  reaching  unto  and  culminating  in  death,  it  naturally 
brought  about  with  it  a total  exclusion  from  the  camp  or  city  of  God. 
God  is  not  a God  of  the  dead ; he  has  no  fellowship  with  death,  for 
death  is  a correlative  of  sin ; but  only  of  the  living.  But  the  leper  was 
as  one  dead,  and  as  such  was  to  be  put  out  of  the  camp,* * * §  (Lev.  xiii.  46 ; 
Num.  v.  2 — 4 ; 2 Kin.  vii.  3,)  or  afterwards  out  of  the  city ; and  we 
find  this  law  to  have  been  so  strictly  enforced,  that  even  the  sister  of 
Moses  might  not  be  exempted  from  it ; (Num.  xii.  14,  15  ;)  and  kings. 
Uzziah,  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  21,)  and  Azariah,  (2  Kin.  xv.  5,)  themselves 
must  submit  to  it ; men  being  by  this  exclusion  taught  that  what  here 
took  place  in  a figure,  should  take  place  in  the  reality  with  every  one  who 
was  found  in  the  death  of  sin : he  should  be  shut  out  of  the  true  city  of 
God.  Thus,  taking  up  and  glorifying  this  and  like  ordinances  of  exclu- 
sion, St.  John  exclaims  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  “There  shall  in  nowise 
enter  intb  it  any  thing  that  defileth,  neither  whatsoever  worketh  abomi- 
nation, or  maketh  a lie.”  (Rev.  xxi.  27.) 

It  need  hardly  be  observed,  that  in  all  this  it  was  not  in  the  least 
implied  that  he  who  bore  this  plague  was  of  necessity  a guiltier  man 
than  his  fellows  ; though  being,  as  it  was,  this  symbol  of  sin,  it  was 
most  often  the  theocratic  punishment,  the  penalty  for  sins  committed 
against  the  theocracy,  as  in  the  cases  of  Miriam,  of  Gehazi,  of  Uzziah  ;f 
and  we  may  compare  Deut.  xxiv.  8,  where  the  warning,  “Take  heed 
of  the  plague  of  leprosy,”  is  not  that  they  diligently  observe  the  laws 
about  leprosy,  but  that  they  beware  lest  this  plague  of  leprosy  come  upon 
them,  lest  by  their  disobedience  they  incur  the  theocratic  penalty. £ The 
Jews  themselves  termed  it  “The  finger  of  God,”  and  emphatically, 

“ The  stroke.”  They  said  that  it  attacked  first  a man’s  house,  and  if  he 
did  not  turn,  his  clothing  * and  then,  if  he  persisted  in  sin,  himself  :§  a 

* Herodotus  (1. 1,  c.  138)  mentions  the  same  law  of  exclusion  as  existing  among 
the  Persians,  who  accounted  in  like  manner  that  leprosy  was  an  especial  visitation  on 
account  of  especial  sins. 

f No  doubt  the  strange  apocryphal  tradition  of  Judas  Iscariot  perishing  by  the 
long  misery  of  a leprosy,  in  its  most  horrible  form  of  elephantiasis,  had  the  same 
origin.  (See  G-frorer,  Die  Heilige  Sage , v.  1,  p.  179.) 

$ See  Rhenferd’s  dissertation,  De  Lepra  Cutis , in  Meuschen’s  N.  T.  ex  Taim, 
illustr.,  p.  1082. 

§ See  Molitor’s  Philosophie  der  Geschichte,  v.  3,  p.  191. 


178 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  LEPEE. 


fine  symbol,  whether  the  fact  was  so  or  not,  of  the  manner  in  which 
God’s  judgments,  if  men  refuse  to  listen  to  them,  reach  ever  nearer  to 
the  centre  of  their  life.  So,  too,  they  said  that  a man’s  true  repentance 
was  the  one  condition  of  his  leprosy  leaving  him.* 

Seeing  then  that  leprosy  was  this  outward  and  visible  sign  of  the 
innermost  spiritual  corruption,  this  sacrament  of  death,  there  could  be 
no  fitter  form  of  evil  over  which  the  Lord  of  life  should  display  his 
power.  He  will  prove  himself  the  conqueror  of  death  in  life,  as  of 
death  completed.  This  victory  of  his  over  this  most  terrible  form  of 
physical  evil  is  fitly  brought  out  as  a testimony  of  his  Messiahship : 
“The  lepers  are  cleansed.”  (Matt.  xi.  5.)  Nor  may  we  doubt  that 
the  terribleness  of  the  infliction,  the  extreme  suffering  with  which  it  was 
linked,  the  horror  which  must  have  filled  the  sufferer’s  mind,  as  he 
marked  its  slow  but  inevitable  progress,  to  be  arrested  by  no  human 
hand,  the  ghastly  hideousness  of  its  unnatural  whiteness,  (Num.  xii. 
10;  Exod.  iv.  6;  2 Kin.  v.  27,)  must  all  have  combined  to  draw  out 
his  pity  ,f  who  was  not  merely  the  mighty,  but  ro  less  the  loving,  Phy- 
sician and  Healer  of  the  bodies  as  of  the  souls  of  men.  The  medical 
details  concerning  this  sickness,  and  the  differences  between  one  kind 
and  another,  as  between  the  white  leprosy,  (Xsyxrj,)  which  among  the 
Jews  was  the  most  frequent,  and  the  yet  more  terrible  elephantiasis, 
thought  by  many  to  have  been  that  with  which  Job  was  visited,  and  so 
named  because  in  it  the  feet  swelled  to  an  elephantine  size,  would  be 
here  out  of  place.  It  is  time  to  return  to  the  consideration  of  this  par- 
ticular act  of  healing. 

The  leper  with  whom  we  now  have  to  do,  came  “ and  worshipped1 ’ 
Jesus — an  act  of  profound  reverence,  as  from  an  inferior  to  a superior, 
yet  not  in  itself  a recognition  of  any  thing  specially  divine  in  him  to 
whom  it  was  offered.  The  words  with  which  he  expresses  what  he 
would  have  from  the  Lord  are  remarkable  as  the  utterance  of  a simple 
and  a humble  faith,  which  is  willing  to  abide  the  issue,  whatever  that 
may  be,  and  having  declared  its  desire,  to  leave  the  complying  with  it 
or  not  to  a higher  wisdom  and  love : “ Lord , if  thou  wilt , thou  canst 
make  me  clean^X  There  is  no  questioning  here  of  the  power ; nothing 

K Thus  Jerome,  following  earlier  Jewish  expositors,  will  explain  the  “ smitten  of 
God,”  (Isai.  liii,  4,)  as  = leprosus,  and  out  of  that  passage  and  the  general  belief  in 
leprosy  as  a vooog  deTjXarog,  upgrew  the  old  Jewish  tradition  of  the  Messiah  being  a 
leper.  See  (Hengstenberg’s  Christologie,  v.  1,  p.  382.) 

•j-  Cf.  Mark  i.  41,  'O  Se  ’hjoovg  GTrhayxviodeig. 

^ Yet  the  Romanists  in  vain  endeavor  to  draw  from  this  passage  an  approval  of 
the  timor  diffidentiae  in  our  prayers  which  have  relation  to  the  things  of  eternal  life, 
such  as  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  These  we  are  to  ask,  assuredly 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  LEPER. 


179 


of  his  unbelief  who  said,  “ If  thou  canst  do  any  thing,  have  compassion 
on  us  and  help  us.”  (Mark  ix.  22.)  Whereupon  the  Lord  “put  forth 
his  hand  and  touched  himf*  ratifying  and  approving  his  utterance  of 
faith,  by  making  the  concession  of  his  request  in  the  very  words  wherein 
the  request  itself  had  been  embodied : “ I will , be  thou  clean”  \ This 
touching  of  the  unclean  by  Christ  is  itself  remarkable,  seeing  that  such 
contact  had  been  forbidden  in  the  Law.  (Lev.  xiv.  46.)  The  adver- 
saries of  the  Law,  the  Gnostics  of  old,  said  that  Christ  did  this  to  mark 
his  contempt  for  its  ordinances,  and  in  witness  that  he  did  not  recognize 
it  as  coming  from  the  good  Deity.  J But  Tertullian  gives  the  true  an- 
swer to  this.§  He  first  shows  what  was  the  deeper  meaning  of  forbidding 
to  touch  the  ceremonially  unclean,  namely,  that  we  should  not  defile 
our  souls  through  being  partakers  in  other  men’s  sins,  as  St.  Paul,  with 
allusion,  no  doubt,  to  these  ceremonial  prohibitions,  and  giving  them  their 
higher  spiritual  significance,  exclaims,  “ Come  out  from  among  them, 
and  be  ye  separate,  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing  ; and  I will  receive 
you.”  (2  Cor.  vi.  17.)  And  these  outer  prohibitions  held  good  for  all, 

believing  that  we  have  them.  There  is  this  uncertainty  in  the  leper’s  request,  because 
he  is  asking  a temporal  benefit,  which  must  always  be  asked  under  conditions,  and 
which  may  be  refused,  though  the  refusing  is  indeed  a granting  of  the  petition  in  a 
higher  form.  (See  Gerhard’s  Loc.  Theoll.,  loc.  1 7,  § 138.) 

* Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  35) : Quoniam  ipse  erat  authenticus  Pontifex 
Dei  Patris,  inspexit  illos  secundum  Legis  arcanum,  significantis  Christum  esse  verum 
disceptatorem  et  elimatorem  humanarum  macularum. 

f Bengel : Echo  prompta  ad  fidem  leprosi  maturam.  Ipsa  leprosi  oratio  cod- 
tinebat  verba  responsionis  optatse. 

\ Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  9) : Ut  aemulus  Legis  tetigit  leprosum  nihil 
faciens  prseceptum  legis,  per  contemptum  inquinamenti. 

§ Ibid  : Non  pigebit  . . . figuratee  legis  vim  ostendere  ; quae  in  exemplo  leprosi 
non  contingendi,  immo  ab  omni  commercio  submovendi,  communicationem  prohibebat 
hominis  delictis  commaculati ; cum  qualibus  et  apostolus  cibum  quoque  vetat  sumere ; 
participari  enim  stigmata  delictorum,  quasi  ex  contagione,  si  quis  se  cum  peccatore 
miscuerit.  Itaque  Dominus  volens  altius  intelligi  Legem,  per  carnalia  spiritalia  signi- 
ficantem ; et  hoc  nomine  non  destruens  sed  magis  exstruens  quam  pertinentius  volebat 
agnosci,  tetigit  leprosum,  a quo  etsi  homo  inquinari  potuisset,  Deus  utique  non  inqui- 
naretur,  incontaminabilis  scilicet.  Ita  non  prsescribetur  illi  quod  debuerit  legem  ob- 
servare,  et  non  contingere  immundum,  quem  contactus  immundi  non  erat  inquinaturus. 
He  is  not  so  successful  in  his  interpretation  of  the  spiritual  significance,  when  else- 
where (Be  Pudicit.,  c.  20)  he  goes  into  more  details  in  the  matter.  So  Calvin  (in 
loc) : Ea  est  in  Christo  puritas,  quae  omnes  sordes  et  inquinamenta  absorbeat,  neque 
se  contaminat  leprosum  tangendo,  neque  Legem  transgreditur  ; and  he  beautifully 
finds  in  his  stretching  forth  the  hand  and  touching,  a symbol  of  the  Incarnation  : Nec 
tamen  quidquam  inde  maculae  contraxit,  sed  integer  manens,  sordes  omnes  nostras 
exhausit,  et  nos  perfudit  sua  sanctitate.  So  H.  de  Sto.  Yictore : Lepram  tetigit,  et 
mundus  permansit,  quia  veram  humanitatis  formam  sumpsit,  et  culpam  non  contraxit. 


180 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  LEPEE. 


till  the  coming  in  of  him  who  was  incontaminable,  in  whom  first  the 
tide  of  this  world’s  evil  was  arrested  and  rolled  back.  Another  would 
have  defiled  himself  by  touching  the  leper ; but  he,  himself  remaining 
undefiled,  cleansed  him  whom  he  touched;  for  in  him  life  overcame 
death, — and  health,  sickness, — and  purity,  defilement.  In  him,  in  its 
most  absolute  sense,  that  word  was  fulfilled,  “ Unto  the  pure  all  things 
are  pure.” 

Ambrose  and  many  others  suppose  that  the  Lord’s  injunction  to  the 
man  that  he  should  not  divulge  his  cure,  was  intended  to  teach  his  fol- 
lowers that  they  too  should  avoid  ostentation  in  their  acts  of  mercy,  lest; 
as  he  says,  they  should  be  themselves  taken  with  a worse  leprosy  than 
any  which  they  healed.*  But  if  the  motive  to  this  prohibition  was  ex- 
ternal, and  had  not  reference  to  the  inner  moral  condition  of  the  receiver 
of  the  benefit,  I should  think  that  our  Lord’s  purpose  was  more  likely 
this,  that  his  stiller  ministry  might  not  be  hindered  or  disturbed  by  the 
inopportune  flowing  to  him  of  multitudes,  who  should  be  drawn  to  him 
merely  by  the  hope  of  sharing  the  same  worldly  benefits,  as  we  see  was 
the  case  on  this  very  occasion,  (Mark  i.  45,)  nor  yet  by  the  premature 
violence  of  his  enemies,  roused  to  a more  active  and  keener  hate  by  the 
great  things  which  were  published  of  him.  (John  xi.  46,  47. f)  But 
there  has  been  already  occasion  to  observe,  that  probably  a deeper  pur- 
pose lay  at  the  root  of  this  injunction  to  silence,  as  of  the  opposite  com- 
mand to  go  and  proclaim  the  great  things  of  God’s  mercy.  The  pre- 
cepts to  tell  or  to  conceal  were  interchangeably  given  according  to  the 
different  moral  conditions  of  the  different  persons  whom  Christ  healed. 
On  the  present  occasion  it  seems  very  probable,  according  to  the  sugges- 
tion of  Grotius  and  Bengel,  that  the  words,  “ See  thou  tell  no  man ,”  are 
to  be  taken  with  this  limitation, — “till  thou  hast  shown  thyself  to 
the  priests ; lest  if  a rumor  of  these  things  go  before  thee,  the  priests 
at  Jerusalem,  out  of  envy,  out  of  a desire  to  depreciate  my  work, 
may  deny  either  that  thou  wast  before  a leper,  or  else  that  thou  art  now 
truly  cleansed.”|  We  may  find  perhaps  indications  of  something  of 

* Exp.  in  Imc .,  1.  5,  c.  5 : Sed  ne  lepra  transire  possit  in  medicum,  unusquisque 
Dominicae  humilitatis  exemplo  jactantiam  vitet.  Cur  enim  praecipitur  nemini  dicere, 
nisi  ut  doceret  non  vulganda  nostra  beneficia,  sed  premenda?  So  Chrysostom: 
’AtvQovc  hpac  napaaKEva^uv  nal  aicevodotjovc. 

f See  a good  note  by  Hammond  on  Matt.  viii.  4.  Calvin : Tanta  erat  vulgi  op- 
portunitas  in  flagitandis  miraculis,  nt  non  restaret  doctrinae  locus. 

$ Thus  the  Anct  Oper.  Imperf.  {Horn.  21) : Ideo  eum  jubet  offerre  munera,  ut  si 
postmodum  vellent  eum  expellere,  diceret  eis : Munera  quasi  a mundato  suscepistis,  et 
quomodo  me  quasi  leprosum  expellitis  ? Si  leprosus  adhuc  fui,  munera  accipere  non 
debuistis  quasi  a mundato : si  autem  mundus  factus  sum,  repellere  non  debetis  quasi 
leprosum.  Witsius  {Be  Mirac.  Jem.  1.  1,  p.  32):  Ideirco  addidit  Jesus  haec  a se  ita 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  LEPEE. 


181 


this  kind  in  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  “ he  forthwith  sent  him  awayf  or, 
put  him  forth  ;*  he  would  allow  no  lingering,  but  required  him  to  hasten 
on  his  errand,  lest  the  report  of  what  had  been  done  should  outrun  him. 

Some  understand  the  words,  ufor  a testimony  unto  them ,”  as  meaning 
“ for  a testimony  even  to  these  gainsay ers  that  I am  come,  not  to  destroy 
the  Law,  but  to  fulfil  it, — to  remove  nothing,  not  even  a shadow,  till  I 
have  brought  in  the  substance  in  its  room.f  These  Levitical  offerings 
I still  allow  and  uphold,  since  that  to  which  they  point  is  not  yet  fully 
given.” | But  I cannot  doubt  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  is  “for 
a testimony  against  them  ;§  for  a witness  against  their  unbelief,  who  are 
refusing  to  give  credence  to  me,  even  while  I am  attesting  myself  to  be 
all  which  I claim  to  be,  by  such  mighty  works  as  these ; works  of  which 
they  themselves  shall  have  ratified  the  reality  by  the  acceptance  of  thy 
gift,  by  thy  re-admission,  as  one  truly  cleansed,  into  the  congregation  of 
the  people.”!  (John  v.  36.)  For  the  purpose  of  his  going  to  the  priest 
was  this,  that  the  priest  might  ascertain  the  fact,  if  really  his  leprosy  had 
left  him,  (Lev.  xiv.  3,)  and,  if  so,  might  accept  his  gift,^[  and  offer  it  as 
an  atonement  for  him ; and  might  then,  when  all  was  duly  accomplished, 
pronounce  him  clean  and  admit  him  anew  into  the  congregation  of  Israel.** 

juberi  elg  yaprvpiov  avrolg,  ne  deinceps  ulla  specie  negari  miraculum  possit,  et  ut, 
dum  eorum  judicio  approbatus,  munus  obtulisset,  testimonium  contra  se  haberent, 
impie  se  facere,  quod  Christo  obluctarentur. 

* ’Efej8a/lev  avrbv. 

\ So  Tertullian  in  his  controversy  with  the  Gnostics  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  9) : 
Quantum  enim  ad  glorise  human®  aversionem  pertinebat,  vetuit  eum  divulgare, 
quantum  autem  ad  tutelam  Legis,  jussit  ordinem  impleri.  Bengel : Ut  testimonium 
illis  exhibeatur,  de  Messia  praesente,  Legi  non  deroganti. 

X Augustine  ( QucesL  Evany.,  1.  2,  qu.  3):  Quia  nondum  esse  cceperat  sacrificium 
sanctum  sanctorum,  quod  corpus  ejus  est. 

§ Cf.  Mark  vi.  11,  where  the  same  phrase,  elg  fiaprvptov  avrolg,  occurs  with  the 
parallel  Luke  ix.  5,  where  it  appears  elg  juaprvptov  krf  avrovg,  and  where  the  context, 
even  without  this  additional  proof,  would  show  beyond  a doubt  what  the  meaning  was. 

| Maldonatus : Ut  inexcusabiles  essent  sacerdotes,  si  in  ipsum  non  crederent,  cujus 
miracula  probassent. 

Tf  A tipov  is  used  for  a bloody  offering  by  the  LXX.,  as  Gen.  iv.  4 ; Lev.  i.  2,  3,  10. 
So  also  several  times  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  viii.  4,  where  the  dupa  is  evi- 
dently equivalent  to  the  6 tipct  re  ical  dvc'iag  of  the  verse  preceding,  therefore  also  of 
v.  1.  Cf.  Matt.  v.  23.  Tertullian  {Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  9)  brings  out  too  much  the  idea 
of  a thank-offering  in  this  gift  which  the  man  is  bidden  to  offer,  which  properly  it 
was  not,  though  the  words  were  admirable,  applied  to  such : Argumenta  enim  figurata 
utpote  prophetatae  legis  adhuc  in  suis  imaginibus  tuebantur,  qua  significabant  hominem 
quondam  peccatorem,  verbo  mox  Dei  emaculatum,  offerre  debere  munus  Deo  apud 
templum,  orationem  scilicet  et  actionem  gratiarum  apud  Ecclesiam,  per  Christum 
•Jesum,  catholicum  Patris  Sacerdotem. 

**  All  the  circumstances  of  the  leper’s  cleansing  yielded  themselves  so  aptly  to  the 


182 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER. 


theory  of  Church  satisfactions,  as  it  gradually  formed  itself  in  the  middle  ages,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  it  was  used  at  least  as  an  illustration,  often  as  an 
argument.  Yet  even  then  we  find  the  great  truth,  of  Christ  the  alone  Cleanser, 
often  brought  out  as  the  most  prominent.  Thus  by  Gratian  (De  Pcenitentid,  Dist.  i.) : 
Ut  Dominus  ostenderet  quod  non  sacerdotali  judicio,  sed  largitate  divinse  gratise  pec- 
cato  emundatur,  leprosum  tangendo  mundavit,  et  postea  sacerdoti  sacrificium  ex  lege 
offerre  preecepit.  Leprosus  enim  tangitur,  cum  respectu  divinae  pietatis  mens  pecca- 

toris  illustrata  compungitur Leprosus  semetipsum  sacerdoti  reprsesentat,  dum 

peccatum  suum  sacerdoti  pcenitens  confitetur.  Sacrificium  ex  lege  offert,  dum  satis- 
factionem  Ecclesiae  judicio  sibi  impositam  factis  exsequitur.  Sed  antequam  ad  sacer- 
dotem  perveniat,  emundatur,  dum  per  contritionem  cordis  ante  confessionemoris  peccati 
veniS,  indulgetur.  Cf.  Pet.  Lombard  (Sent.,  1.  4,  dist.  18) : Domnus  leprosum  sani- 
tate prius  per  se  restituit,  deinde  ad  sacerdotes  misit,  quorum  judicio  ostenderetur 

mundatus Quia  etsi  aliquis  apud  Deum  sit  solutus,  non  tamen  in  facie  Ecclesiae 

solutus  habetur,  nisi  per  judicium  sacerdotis.  In  solvendis  ergo  culpis  vel  retinendis 
ita  operatur  sacerdos  evangelicus  et  judicat,  sicut  olim  legalis  in  illis,  qui  contaminate 
erant  lepra,  quae  peccatum  signat. 


XI. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CENTURION’S  SERVANT, 


Matt.  viii.  5 — 13  ; Luke  vii.  1 — 10. 


There  has  been  already  occasion  to  speak  of  the  utter  impossibility  of 
this  healing  being  one  and  the  same  with  that  of  the  nobleman’s  son  re- 
corded by  St.  John.  (iv.  43.)  But  while  we  may  not  thus  seek  to  har- 
monize two  narratives  which  relate  to  circumstances  entirely  different, 
yet  there  is  still  matter  here  remaining  on  which  the  harmonist  may  ex- 
ercise his  skill : there  are  two  independent  accounts  of  this  miracle,  one 
given  by  St.  Matthew,  the  other  by  St.  Luke, — and,  according  to  the 
first  Evangelist,  the  centurion  comes  in  his  own  person  to  ask  the  boon 
which  he  desires ; according  to  the  third  he  sends  others  as  intercessors 
between  himself  and  the  Lord,  with  other  differences  which  flow  out  of 
this.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  are  to  accept  the  latter  as  the  more 
strictly  literal  account  of  the  circumstance,  as  it  actually  came  to  pass ; 
— St.  Matthew,  who  is  briefer,  telling  it  as  though  the  centurion  had  done 
in  his  own  person  what,  in  fact,  he  did  by  the  intervention  of  others — 
an  exchange  of  persons  of  which  all  historical  narrations  and  all  the 
language  of  our  common  life  is  full.*  (Compare  Mark  x.  35,  with  Matt, 
xx.  20,  for  another  example  of  the  same.) 

* Faustus  the  Manichaean  uses  the  apparent  divergences  of  the  two  narrations, 
namely,  that  in  one  the  Centurion  pleaded  in  his  own  person,  in  the  other  by  inter- 
vention of  Jewish  elders,  and  the  greater  fulness  of  the  one  than  of  the  other,  it  being 
said  in  one  that  “ many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  sit  down  with  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,”  while  this  is  omitted  in  the  other,  to 
cast  a slight  and  suspicion  upon  both.  'It  is  of  course  this  last  declaration  which 
makes  him  bent  any  how  on  getting  rid  of  this  history.  The  calumniator  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  he  cannot  endure  to  hear  of  the  chiefs  of  that  covenant  sitting  down  at  the 
first  places  in  the  heavenly  banquet.  Augustine’s  reply  contains  much  which  is  admi- 


184  THE  HEALIKG  OF  THE  CENTURIONS  SERVANT. 


This  centurion,  probably  one  of  the  Roman  garrison  of  Capernaum, 
was  by  birth  a heathen;  but,  like  him  in  the  Acts,  (x.  1,)  who  bore  the 
same  office,  was  one  of  the  many  who  were  at  this  time  deeply  feeling 
the  emptiness  of  all  polytheistic  religions,  and  who  had  attached  them- 
selves by  laxer  or  closer  bonds  to  the  congregation  of  Israel  and  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  finding  in  Judaism  a satisfaction  of  some  of  the 
deepest  needs  of  their  souls,  and  a promise  of  the  satisfaction  of  all. 
He  was  one  among  the  many  who  are  distinguished  from  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  yet  described  as  fearing  God,  or  worshipping  God,  of  whom 
we  read  so  often  in  the  Acts, — the  proselytes,  whom  the  providence  of 
God  had  so  wonderfully  prepared  in  all  the  great  cities  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  world  as  a link  of  communication  between  Gentile  and  Jew, 
in  contact  with  both, — holding  to  the  first  by  their  race,  and  to  the  last 
by  their  religion;  and  who  must  have  greatly  helped  to  the  ultimate 
fusion  of  both  into  one  Christian  Church. 

But  with  the  higher  matters  which  he  had  learned  from  his  inter- 
course with  the  people  of  the  covenant,  he  had  learned  no  doubt  this, 
that  all  heathens,  all  “ sinners  of  the  Gentiles,”  were  “ without ;”  that 
there  was  a,  middle  wall  of  partition  between  them  and  the  children  of  the 
stock  of  Abraham ; that  they  were  to  worship  only  as  in  the  outer  court, 
not  presuming  to  draw  near  to  the  holy  place.  And  thus  he  did  not  him- 
self approach,  but  sent  others  to,  Jesus,  in  whom  he  recognized  a being 
of  a higher  world,  entreating  him,  by  them,  “ that  he  would  come  and  heal 
his  servant ,”  a servant  who,  as  St.  Luke  adds,  uwas  dear  unto  him”* 
but  now  “ was  sick  and  ready  to  die.”  The  elders  of  the  Jews,  wrhom 
he  employed  on  this  errand,  were  his  willing  messengers,  and  appear 
zealously  to  have  executed  their  commission,  pleading  for  him  as  one 
whose  affection  for,  and  active  well-doing  towards,  the  chosen  people 


rable  or*  the  unfair  way  in  which  the  opposers  of  the  truth  find  or  make  discrepan- 
cies where  indeed  there  are  none, — as  though  one  narrator  telling  some  detail  in  an 
event,  contradicts  another,  who  passes  over  that  detail,— one  saying  that  a person  did 
this,  contradicts  another  who  states  more  particularly  that  he  did  it  by  the  agency 
and  intervention  of  another.  All  that  we  demand,  he  says,  is,  that  men  should  be 
as  just  to  Scripture  as  to  any  other  historic  record ; should  suffer  it  to  speak  to  men 
as  they  are  Wont  to  speak  one  to  another  (Con.  Faust.,  1.  33,  c.  7,  8) : Quid  ergo,  cum 
legimus,  obliviscimur  quemadmodum  loqui  soleamus  ? An  Scriptura  Dei  aliter  no- 
biscum fuerat  quam  nostro  more  locutura.  Cf.  De  Cons.  Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  20. 

* Calvin : Lucas  hoc  modo  dubitationem  prsevenit,  quae  subire  poterat  lectorum 
animos : scimus  enim,  non  habitos  fuisse  servos  eo  in  pretio,  ut  de  ipsorum  vita  tam 
anxii  essent  domini,  nisi  qui  singulari  industria  vel  fide  vel  alia  virtute  sibi  gratiam 
acquisierant.  Significat  ergo  Lucas  non  vulgare  fuisse  sordidumque  mancipium,  sed 
fidelem  et  raris  dotibus  ornatum  servum  qui  eximkt  gratis  apud  dominum  polleret 
liinc  tanta  illius  vita;  cura  et  turn  studiosa  commendatio. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CENTURIONS  SERVANT.  185 


deserved  this  return  of  favor : “for  he  loveth  our  nation , and  he  hath  built 
us  a synagogue .” 

But  presently  even  this  request  which  he  had  made  seemed  to  him 
too  great  a boldness.  In  his  true  and  ever-deepening  humility  he 
counted  it  a presumption  to  have  asked,  though  by  the  intervention  of 
others,  the  presence  under  his  roof  of  so  exalted  a personage.  It  was 
not  merely  that  he  was  a heathen,  and  so  might  claim  no  near  approach 
to  the  King  of  Israel ; but  there  was,  no  doubt,  besides  this,  and  ming- 
ling with  this,  a deep  and  inward  feeling  of  his  own  personal  unwor- 
thiness and  unfitness  for  a close  communion  with  a holy  being,  which 
caused  him  again  to  send,  beseeching  the  Lord  to  approach  no  nearer, 
but  only  to  speak  the  word,  and  he  knew  that  straightway  his  servant 
would  be  healed.  And  thus,  in  Augustine’s  words,  “ while  he  counted 
himself  unworthy  that  Christ  should  enter  into  his  doors,  he  was  counted 
worthy  that  Christ  should  enter  into  his  heart,”* — a far  better  boon  : for 
Christ  sat  down  in  the  houses  of  men,  as  of  that  proud,  self-righteous 
Pharisee,  whose  hearts  were  not  for  this  the  less  empty  of  his  presence.. 
But  this  centurion  received  him  in  his  heart,  whom  he  did  not  receive 
in  his  house.f  And,  indeed,  every  little  trait  of  his  character,  as  it 
comes  out  in  the  sacred  narrative,  combines  to  show  him  as  one  in  whom 
the  seed  of  God’s  word  would  find  the  ready  and  prepared  soil  of  a 
good  and  honest  heart.  For  not  to  speak  of  those  prime  conditions, 
faith  and  humility,  which  in  so  eminent  a degree  shone  forth  in  him, — ■ 
the  evident  affection  which  he  had  won  from  those  Jewish  elders,  the 
zeal  which  had  stirred  him  to  build  a house  for  the  worship  of  the  true 
God,  his  earnest  care  and  anxiety  about  a slave — one  so  generally  ex- 
cluded from  all  earnest  human  sympathies  on  the  part  of  his  master, 
that  even  a Cicero  thinks  it  needful  to  excuse  himself  for  feeling  deeply 
the  death  of  such  an  one  in  his  household,— all  these  traits  of  character 
combine  to  present  him  to  us  as  one  of  those  “ children  of  God”  that 
were  scattered  abroad  in  the  world,  and  whom  Christ  was  to  gather 
together  into  the  one  fellowship  of  his  Church.  (John  xi.  52.) 

The  manner  is  remarkable  in  which  the  centurion  makes  easier  to 
himself  his  act  of  faith,  by  the  help  of  an  analogy  drawn  from  the  circle 
of  things  with  which  he  himself  is  familiar,  by  a comparison  which  he 

* Serm.  62,  c.  1 : Dicendo  se  indignum  prsestitit  dignum,  non  in  cujus  parietes, 
sed  in  cujus  cor  Christus  intraret.  Neque  lioc  diceret  cum  tanta  fide  pt  humilitate, 
nisi  ilium  quern  timebat  intrare  in  domum  suam,  corde  gestaret.  Nam  non  erat  magna 
felicitas  si  Dominus  Jesus  intraret  in  parietes  ejus  et  non  esset  in  pectore  ejus.  (Luc. 
vii.  36.) 

f Augustine  ( Sefm . c.  8) : Tecto  non  recipiebat,  corde  receperat.  Quanto 

humilior,  tanto  capacior,  tanto  plenior.  Colies  enim  aquam  repelluut,  valles  implentur. 

24 


186  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CENTURION^  SERVANT. 


borrows  from  his  own  military  experience.*  He  knows  that  Christ’s 
word  will  be  sufficient,  for  he  adds,  “ I am  a man  under  authority , having 
soldiers  under  me , and  I say  to  this  man , Go:  and  he  goeth , and  to  another , 
Come , and  he  cometh,  and  to  my  servant , Do  this , and  he  doeth  it”  His 
argument  is  here  from  the  less  to  the  greater.  “ I am,”  he  would  say, 
“ one  occupying  only  a subordinate  place,  set  under  authority,  a subal- 
tern, with  tribunes  and  commanders  over  me.  Yet,  notwithstanding, 
those  that  are  under  me,  obey  me.  My  word  is  potent  with  them.  I 
have  power  to  send  them  hither  and  thither,  and  they  go  at  my  bidding, 
so  that  sitting  still  I can  yet  have  the  things  accomplished  which  I would. 
How  much  more  thou,  who  art  not  set,  as  I am,  in  a subordinate  place, 
but  who  art  as  a prince  over  the  host  of  heaven, f who  wilt  have  angels 
and  spirits  to  obey  thy  word  and  run  swiftly  at  thy  command.  It  needs 
not  then  that  thou  comest  to  my  house ; do  thou  only  commission  one  of 
these  genii  of  healing,  who  will  execute  speedily  the  errand  of  grace  on 
which  thou  shalt  send  him.”J  His  view  of  Christ’s  relation  to  the  spi- 

* Bengel:  Sapientia  fidelis  ex  ruditate  militari  pulchre  elucens. 

\ The  organa  ovpdviog.  How  true  a notion  this  indeed  was,  which  in  his  simple 
faith  the  centurion  had  conceived  for  himself,  we  see  from  those  words  of  our  Lord’s, 
“ Thinkest  thou  that  I cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give 
me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ? (Matt.  xxvi.  53.)  Jerome  (in  loc.) : Volens 
ostendere  Dominum  quoque  non  per  adventum  tantum  corporis,  sed  per  angelorum 
ministeria  posse  implere  quod  vellet. 

f Severus  (in  Cramer’s  Catena) : E i ydg  eye)  orpandTr/g  dv,  Kal  vtto  k^ovaiav 
(iaoi'hEug  reTidv,  rolg  6opv(j)6poig  hreTCkoyai,  ntig  ov  paEkov  avrog  6 rtiv  uvu  Kal  dy~ 
yekiK&v  bvvdpeuv  7 zoirjrgg,  o dekeig  epelg  Kal  yevrjoerai ; and  Augustine  ( Enarr . in  Ps. 
xlvi.  9,  and  Serm.  lxii.  c.  2):  Si  ergo  ego,  inquit,  homo  sub  potestate,  jubendi  habeo 
potestatem,  quid  tu  possis,  cui  omnes  serviunt  potestates  ? And  Bernard  more  than 
once  brings  out  this  as  an  eminent  and  characteristic  feature  of  his  humility.  Thus 
Ep.  392:  0 prudens  et  ver6  corde  humilis  anima!  dicturus  quod  pnelatus  esset 
militibus,  repressit  extollentiam  confessione  subjectionis : immo  praemisit  subjectio- 
nem,  ut  pluris  sibi  esset  quod  suberat,  quam  quod  prseerat ; and  beautifully,  Be.  Off. 
Episc.,  c.  8 : Non  jactabat  potestatem,  quam  nec  solam  protulit,  nec  priorem.... 
Prsemissa  siquidem  est  humilitas,  ne  altitudo  pra^cipitet.  Nec  enim  locum  invenit 
arrogantia,  ubi  tam  clarum  humilitatis  insigne  praecesserat.  Such  explanation 
appears  preferable  to  any  of  those  which  make  uvdpu-og  vtto  etjovciav,  a man  in 
authority.  Rettig,  ( Theol . Stud.  u.  Krit.,  v.  11,  p.  4*72,)  reading  with  Lachmann, 
dvOp.  i-izo  k%ovo.  Taoooyevog,  (which  last  word,  however,  should  not  have  been 
admitted  into  the  text,)  has  an  ingenious  but  untenable  explanation  in  the  latter  and 
less  eligible  sense.  Different  from  all  these,  and  entirely  original,  is  the  view  of  the 
passage  taken  by  the  Auct.  Oper.  Imperf,  who  agrees  so  far  with  the  right  inter- 
pretation that  he  makes  dvOpuirog  vtto  k^ovaiav,  a man  in  a subordinate  position ; 
but  then  will  not  allow,  but  expressly  denies,  that  it  is  thus  a comparison  by  way 
of  contrast  between  himself  and  the  Lord,  which  the  centurion  is  drawing, — 
that  he  is  magnifying  the  Lord’s  highest  place  by  comparing  it  with  his  own 
only  subordinate,  but  that  rather  he  is  in  all  things  likening  the  one  to  the  other  : 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CENTURION’S  SERVANT.  18  7 


ritual  kingdom  is  as  original  as  it  is  grand ; and  it  is  so  truly  that  of 
the  Roman  officer : the  Lord  appears  to  him  as  the  true  Csesar  and 
Imperator , the  highest  over  the  hierarchy,  not  of  earth,  but  of  heaven. 
(Col.  i.  16.) 

In  all  this  there  was  so  wonderful  a union  of  childlike  faith  and  pro- 
found humility,  that  it  is  not  strange  to  read  that  the  Lord  himself  was 
filled  with  admiration : “ When  Jesus  heard  it , he  marvelled  * and  said 
to  them  that  followed,  Verily , I say  unto  you , I have  not  found  so  great 
faith , no , not  in  Israel It  is  notable  that  St.  Matthew  alone  records 
these  words,  which  beforehand  we  should  rather  have  expected  to  have 
found  recorded  by  St.  Luke.  For  it  is  he,  the  companion  of  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  for  the  most  part  loves  to  bring  out  the  side  of  our 
Lord’s  ministry,  on  which  it  looked  not  merely  to  the  Jewish  nation  but 
to  the  heathen  world.  In  these  words,  and  in  those  which  follow,  is  a 
solemn  warning,  on  the  Lord’s  part,  to  his  Jewish  hearers  of  their  dan- 
ger of  losing  privileges,  which  now  were  theirs,  but  which  yet  they 

“ As  I am  under  -worldly  authorities,  and  yet  have  those  whom  I may  send,  so  thou, 
albeit  under  thine  heavenly  Father,  hast  yet  a heavenly  host  at  thy  bidding.”  Ego 
sum  homo  sub  potestate  alterius,  tamen  habeo  potestatem  jubendi  eis  qui  sub  me  sunt. 
Nee  enim  impedior  jubere  minore3,  propter  quod  ipse  sum  sub  majoribus ; sed  ab  illis 
quidem  jubeor,  sub  quibus  sum ; illis  autem  jubeo,  qui  sub  me  sunt : sic  et  tu,  quamvis 
sub  potestate  Patris  sis,  secundum  quod  homo  es,  habes  tamen  potestatem  jubendi 
angelis  tuis,  nec  impediris  jubere  inferioribus,  propter  quod  ipse  habes  superiorem. 
This  interpretation,  though  just  capable  of  a fair  meaning,  is  probably  the  outcoming 
of  the  Arian  tendencies  of  the  author. 

* But  since  all  wonder,  properly  so  called,  arises  from  the  meeting  with  something 
unexpected  and  hitherto  unknown,  how  could  the  Lord,  to  whom  all  things  were 
known,  be  said  to  marvel  ? To  this  it  has  been  answered  that  Christ  did  not  so  much 
actually  wonder,  as  commend  to  us  that  which  was  worthy  of  our  admiration.  Thus 
Augustine  (Be  Gen.,  Con.  Man.,  1.  1,  c,  8):  Quod  mirabatur  Dominus,  nobis  miran- 
dum  esse  significabat;  and  he  asks  in  another  place,  {Con.  Adv.  Ley.,  et  Proph.,  1.  1, 
c.  *7,)  how  should  not  he  have  known  before  the  faith,  which  he  himself  had  created  ? 
(An  verb  alius  earn  in  corde  centurionis  operabatur,  quam  ipse  qui  mirabatur  ?)  There 
is  against  this,  that  it  seems  to  bring  an  unreality  into  parts  of  our  Lord’s  conduct,  as 
though  he  did  some  things  for  show  and  the  effect  which  they  would  have  on  others , 
instead  of  all  his  actions  having  their  deepest  root  in  his  own  nature,  being  the  truth- 
ful exponents  of  his  own  most  inmost  being.  On  the  other  hand,  to  say  that  accord- 
ing to  his  human  nature  he  might  have  been  ignorant  of  some  things,  seems  to 
threaten  a Nestorian  severance  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  But  the  whole  question  of 
the  Communio  idiomatum,  with  its  precipices  on  either  side,  is  one  of  the  hardest  in 
the  whole  domain  of  theology.  (See  Aquinas,  Sum.  Theol.,  3a.  qu.  15,  art.  8,  and 
Gerhard’s  Loc.  Theoll.,  1.  4,  p.  2,  c.  4.) 

f Augustine : In  oliva  non  inveni,  quod  inveni  in  oleastro.  Ergo  oliva  super 
biens  prsecidatur : oleaster  humilis  inseratur.  Vide  inserentem,  vide  praeeidentem 
Cf.  In  Joh.,  Tract.  16,  ad  finem. 


188  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CENTURIONS  SERVANT. 


should  see  pass  Over  from  them  into  the  possession  of  others.*  Be- 
cause of  their  unbelief,  they,  the  natural  branches  of  the  olive  tree, 
should  be  broken  off;  and  in  their  room  the  wild  olive  should  be  graffed 
in : “ Many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  from  the  west , and  shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham , and  Isaac , and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ,”  shall  be 
partakers  of  the  heavenly  festival,  which  shall  be  at  the  inauguration  of 
the  kingdom ; and  from  which  they  who  were  first  invited  should  be  ex- 
cluded. 

And  then  to  him,  or  to  his  messengers,  it  was  said,  “ Go  thy  way , and 
as  thou  hast  believed, \ so  be  it  done  unto  thee.  And  his  servant  was  healed 
in  the  selfsame  hour  — not  merely  was  there  a remission  of  the  strength 
of  the  disease,  but  it  altogether  left  him.  There  has  sometimes  been  a 
difficulty  concerning  the  exact  nature  of  the  complaint  from  which  he 
was  thus  graciously  delivered.  In  St.  Matthew  the  centurion  describes 
it  as  palsy,  with  which  however  the  “ grievously  tormented ” does 
not  seem  altogether  to  agree,  nor  yet  St.  Luke’s  words  that  he  was 
“ ready  to  die”  since  in  itself  it  is  neither  accompanied  with  these  vio- 
lent paroxysms  of  pain,  nor  is  it  in  its  nature  mortal.  But  paralysis 
with  the  contraction  of  the  joints  is  accompanied  with  strong  pain,  and 
when  united,  as  it  much  oftener  is  in  the  hot  climates  of  the  East  and  of 
Africa  than  among  us,  with  tetanus,  both  causes  extreme  suffering,  and 
would  rapidly  bring  on  dissolution.* 


* Augustine : Alienigense  carne,  domestici  corde. 

f Bernard  ( Sertn . 3,  De  Anlma) : Oleum  misericordise  in  vase  fiduciae  ponit. 

At  1 Macc.  ix.  55,  56,  it  is  said  of  Alcimus,  who  is  described  “ as  taken  with  a 
palsy,”  that  he  died  presently  “ with  great  torment,”  {fieri i /3aadvov  fieyaTirfs,)  as  here 
this  servant  is  described  as  deivtig  fiacavjofievog.  (See  Winer’s  Real  Wortcrbuch, 
s.  v.  Paralylische.)  In  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  those  thus  afflicted  are  always 
xapalvTLKol,  in  St.  Luke,  both  in  his  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts,  TraoaTielvuevoi. 


XII. 

THE  DEMONIAC  IN  THE  SYNAGOGUE  OF  CAPEENAUM. 

Mark  i.  23 — 26  ; Luke  iv.  33 — 36. 

The  healing  of  this  demoniac,  the  second  miracle  of  the  kind  which 
the  Evangelists  record  at  any  length,  is  very  far  from  offering  so  much 
remarkable  as  some  other  works  of  the  same  kind,  yet  it  is  not  without 
its  peculiar  features.  That  which  it  has  most  remarkable,  although  that 
is  not  without  its  parallels,  (see  Mark  i.  34 ; Matt.  viii.  29,)  is  the  testi- 
mony which  the  evil  spirit  bears  to  Christ,  and  his  refusal  to  accept  that 
testimony.  In  either  of  these  circumstances,  this  history  stands  parallel 
to  the  account  which  we  have  in  the  Acts  (xvi.  16 — 18)  of  the  girl  with 
the  spirit  of  Apollo,  who  bore  witness  to  Paul  and  his  company,  “ These 
men  are  the  servants  of  the  Most  High  God,  which  show  unto  us  the 
way  of  salvation,”  whereat,  in  like  manner,  Paul  was  “grieved,”  and 
would  not  permit  it  any  more. 

Our  Lord  was  teaching,  as  was  his  wont  upon  a Sabbath,  in  the  syn- 
agogue of  Capernaum ; and  the  people  were  already  wondering  at  the 
auth  >rity  with  which  he  taught.  But  he  was  not  only  mighty  in  word, 
but  also  mighty  in  work,  and  it  was  ordained  by  the  providence  of  his 
Heavenly  Eather,  that  the  opportunity  should  here  be  offered  him  for 
making  yet  deeper  the  impression  on  his  hearers,  for  here  also  confirm- 
ing the  word  with  signs  following.  “ There  was  in  their  synagogue  a 
man  with  an  unclean  spirit and  this  unclean  spirit  felt  at  once  that 
One  was  nigh,  who  was  stronger  than  all  the  kingdom  whereunto  he  be- 
longed : hitherto  his  goods  had  been  at  peace ; but  now  there  was  come 
One  who  should  divide  the  spoil.  And  with  the  instinct  and  conscious- 
ness of  this  danger  which  so  nearly  threatened  the  kingdom  of  hell,  he 
cried  out, — not  the  man  himself,  but  the  evil  spirit  which  had  usurped 


190 


THE  DEMONIAC  IN  THE. 


dominion  over  him, — “saying,  Let-us  alone ;* * * §  what  have  we  to  do  with 
thee , thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?\  art  thou  .come  to  destroy  us  ? I Jcnow  thee 
who  thou  art , the  Holy  One  of  God.”  Earth  has  not  recognized  her  king, 
has  not  yet  seen  him  through  his  disguise ; but  heaven  and  hell  alike 
bear  witness  unto  him : “the  devils  also  believe  and  tremble.” 

Yet  here  this  question  arises,  what  could  have  been  the  motive  to  this 
testimony,  thus  borne  1 It  is  strange  that  the  evil  spirit  should  thus, 
without  compulsion,  proclaim  to  men  his  presence,  who  was  come  to  be 
the  destroyer  of  the  kingdom  of  the  devil.  Rather  we  should  expect 
that  he  would  have  denied,  or  sought  to  obscure,  the  glory  of  his  Person. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  this  was  an  unwilling  confession  to  the  truth,  forci- 
bly extorted  by  Christ’s  superior  power,  since  it  displeased  him  in  whose 
favor  it  professed  to  be  borne,  and  was  by  him  silenced  at  once.  It  re- 
mains either,  with  Theophylact  and  Grotius,  to  take  this  as  the  cry  of 
base  and  abject  fear,  that  with  fawning  and  with  flattery  would  fain  avert 
from  itself  the  doom,  which  with  Christ’s  presence  in  the  world  appears 
so  near ; — to  compare,  as  Jerome  does,  this  exclamation  to  that  of  the  fugi- 
tive slave,  dreaming  of  nothing  but  stripes  and  torments  when  he  encoun- 
ters his  well-known  lord,  and  who  would  now  by  any  means  turn  away 
his  anger : J or  else,  and  so  Christ’s  immediately  stopping  of  his  mouth 
would  seem  to  argue,  this  testimony  was  intended  only  to  do  harm,  to 
injure  the  estimation  of  him  in  whose  behalf  it  was  borne.  It  was  to  bring 
the  truth  itself  into  suspicion  and  discredit,  when  it  was  borne  witness  to 
by  the  spirit  of  lies  and  thus  these  confessions  to  Christ  may  have  been 
intended  only  to  anticipate  and  to  mar  his  great  purpose  and  plan,  even 
as  we  see  Mark  iii.  22  following  hard  on  Mark  iii.  11.  Therefore  the 
Lord  would  not  allow  this  testimony ; “ Jesus  rebuked  him , saying,  Hold 
thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him;” ||  not  as  Michael  the  archangel,  “ The 

* TEa,  not  the  imperative  from  Mcj,  but  an  interjection  of  terror,  wrung  out  by 
the  (pofSepd.  kuSoxn  Kpiaecog,  (Heb.  x.  27,) — unless  indeed  the  interjection  was  originally 
this  imperative. 

f ISa&pr/voe  here.  The  word  appears  in  the  New  Testament  in  two  other  forms, 
Na&palog  and  N a&patoc.  Of  all  these  the  last  is  the  most  frequent. 

\ Grotius:  Yult  Jesum  blanditiis  demulcere,  cui  se  certando  imparem  erat  exper- 
tus.  Jerome  {Comm,  in  Matth.  ix.):  Yelut  si  servi  fugitivi  post  multum  temporis 
dominum  suum  videant ; nihil  aliud  nisi  de  verberibus  deprecantur. 

§ Thus,  with  a slight  difference  in  the  view,  Tertullian  {Adv.  Hare .,  L 4,  c.  7)* 
Increpuit  eum  Jesus,  plane  ut  invidiosum  et  in  ipsa  confessione  petulantem  et  mal6 
adulantem,  quasi  haec  esset  suinma  gloria  Christi,  si  ad  perditionem  daemonum  venis- 
set,  et  non  potius  ad  hominum  salutem. 

| Tertullian  {Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  8) : Illius  erat,  praeconium  immundi  spiritds  res- 
puere,  cui  Sancti  abundabant.  Calvin : Duplex  potest  esse  ratio,  cur  loqui  non  sineret: 
una  generalis  quod  nondum  maturum  plenae  revelationis  tempus  advenerat ; altera  spe- 


SYNAGOGUE  OF  CAPERNAUM. 


191 


Lord  rebuke  thee,”  (Jude  9,)  but  in  his  own  name  and  in  his  own 
power. 

It  might  seem  as  though  the  evil  spirit  was  not  altogether  and  at 
once  obedient  to  the  word  of  Christ,  that  it  was  not  altogether  a word  of 
power;  since  he  bade  him  to  hold  his  peace,  and  yet  in  the  next  verse 
it  is  said,  that  “ he  cried  with  a loud  voice”  as  he  was  leaving  the  man. 
(Cf.  Acts  viii.  7.)  But  in  truth  he  was  obedient  to  this  command  of 
silence ; he  did  not  speak  any  more,  and  that  was  the  thing  which  our 
Lord  meant  to  forbid : this  cry  was  nothing  but  an  inarticulate  cry  of 
rage  and  pain.  Neither  is  there  any  contradiction  between  St.  Luke, 
(iv.  35,)  who  says  that  the  evil  spirit  “ hurt  him  not”  and  St.  Mark,  ac- 
cording to  whom  he  “ tare”  him : he  did  not  do  him  any  permanent 
injury ; no  doubt  what  evil  he  could  do  him  he  did.  Even  St.  Luke 
says  that  he  cast  him  on  the  ground ; with  which  the  phrase  of  the 
earlier  Evangelist,  that  he  threw  him  into  strong  convulsions,  in  fact 
consents.  We  have  at  Mark  ix.  26  an  analogous  case,  only  with  worse 
symptoms  accompanying  the  going  out  of  the  foul  spirit ; for  what  the 
devil  cannot  keep  as  his  own,  he  will,  if  he  can,  destroy ; even  as  Pha- 
raoh never  treated  the  children  of  Israel  worse  than  just  when  they 
were  escaping  from  his  grasp.  Something  similar  is  evermore  finding 
place;  and  Satan  vexes  with  temptations  and  with  bufferings  none  so 
much  as  those  who  are  in  the  act  of  being  delivered  from  under  his  do- 
minion for  ever. 

cialis,  quod  illos  repudiabat  praecones  ac  testes  suae  divinitatis,  qui  laude  sua  nihil 
aliud  quam  maculam,  et  sinistram  opinionera  aspergere  illi  poterant.  Atque  haec 
posterior  indubia  est,  quia  testatum  oportuit  esse  hostile  dissidium,  quod  habebat 
aeternw  salutis  et  vitae  auctor  cum  mortis  principe  ej usque  ministris. 


XIII. 

THE  HEALING  OF  SIMON’S  WIFE’S  MOTHER. 


Matt.  viii.  14 — 17  ; Mark  i.  29 — 31 ; Luke  iv.  38 — 39. 


This  miracle  is  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  linked  immediately  and  in  a 
manner  that  marks  an  historic  connection,  with  that  which  has  just 
come  under  our  notice.  The  sacred  historians  go  on  to  speak  of  our 
Lord,  saying,  “ And  he  arose  out  of  the  synagogue , and  went  into  Simon's 
house  f — in  St.  Mark,  u the  house  of  Simon  and  Andrew  A The 
stronger  personality  of  Peter  causes  Andrew,  the  earlier  called,  and 
the  leader  of  his  brother  to  Jesus,  probably  also  the  elder  brother,  here 
as  elsewhere  to  fall  into  the  background.  We  may  infer  that  he  went 
on  this  Sabbath  day  to  eat  bread  there.  (Cf.  Luke  xiv.  1.*)  Being 
arrived,  it  was  told  him  of  Simon’s  wife’s  mother,  who  “ was  taken  with 
a great  fever , and  they  besought  him  for  her  A Herb,  again,  we  have 
the  use  of  a remarkable  phrase;  Jesus  “ rebuked  the  fever  f as  at  other 
times  he  “ rebuked ” the  winds  and  the  waves ; and  with  such  effect  that 
it  left  her,  and  not  in  that  state  of  extreme  weakness  and  exhaustion 
which  fever  usually  leaves  behind,  when  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things 
it  has  abated  ;f  it  left  her  not  gradually  convalescent : but  so  entire  and 

* Maldonatus  is  greatly  troubled  that  Peter  should  have  a house,  while  it  has 
been  said  before  that  he  “ left  all,”  and  to  allow  this  really  to  have  been  Simon’s 
house  appears  to  him  to  militate  against  the  perfection  of  his  state.  His  explanation 
and  that  of  most  of  the  Romish  expositors  is,  that  this  house  was  one  which  had 
been  Peter’s,  and  which  he  had  made  over  to  his  wife’s  mother,  when  he  determined 
to  follow  Christ  in  the  absolute  renunciation  of  all  things.  It  is  needless ; the  re- 
nunciation was  entire  in  will,  (see  Matt.  xix.  27,)  and  ready  in  act  to  be  carried  out 
into  all  its  details,  as  necessity  arose. 

f Jerome  (Comm,  in  Matt.,  in  loc.)  observes  this:  Natura  hominum  istiusmodi 
est,  ut  post  febrim  magis  lassescant  corpora,  et  incipiente  sanitate  segrotationis  mala 
sentiant. 


THE  HEALING  OF  SIMONS  WIFE’S  MOTHER.  193 

unwonted  was  her  cure,  that  “ immediately  she  arose  and  ministered 
unto  them”  was  able  to  provide  for  them  what  was  necessary  for 
their  entertainment ; a pattern,  as  has  been  often  observed,  in  this  to 
every  one  that  has  been  restored  to  spiritual  health,  that  he  should  use 
this  strength  in  ministering  to  Christ  and  to  his  people.* 

The  fame  of  this  miracle  and  that  which  immediately  preceded  it 
on  the  same  day,  spread  so  rapidly,  that  “ when  the  even  was  come”  or 
as  St.  Mark  has  it,  “ when  the  sun  did  set”  they  brought  to  him  many 
more  that  were  variously  afflicted.  There  are  two  explanations  of  this 
little  circumstance,  which  all  three  Evangelists  are  careful  to  record, 
that  it  was  not  till  the  sun  was  setting  or  had  actually  set,  that  they 
brought  these  sick  to  Jesus; — either,  as  Hammond  and  Olshausen  sug- 
gest, that  they  waited  till  the  heat  of  the  middle  day,  which  these  sick 
and  suffering  were  ill  able  to  bear,  was  past,  and  brought  them  in  the 
cool  of  the  evening ; or  else  to  say  that  this  day  being  the  Sabbath,  (cf. 
Mark  i.  21,  29,  32,)  they  were  unwilling  to  violate  the  sacred  rest  of  the 
day,  which  they  counted  they  would  have  done  by  bringing  their  sick  to 
be  healed ; and  so,  ere  they  would  do  this,  waited  till  the  Sabbath  was 
ended.  It  did  end,  as  is  well  known,  at  sunset.  Thus  Chrysostom  in 
one  place, f although  in  another  he  sees  in  it  more  generally  a sign  of 
the  faith  and  eagerness  of  the  people,  who  even  when  the  day  was 
spent,  still  came  streaming  to  Christ,  and  laying  their  siek  at  his  feet. 

The  quotation  which  St.  Matthew  makes  from  Isaiah,  after  he  has 
recorded  the  numerous  healings  which  Christ  upon  that  day  effected, 
is  not  without  difficulties  ; “ that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  Esaias  the  prophet , saying , Himself  took  our  infirmities  and  bore  our 
sicknesses”  l The  difficulty  does  not  lie  in  the  fact  that  St.  Peter  (1  Pet. 
ii.  24)  quotes  the  same  verse  rather  as  setting  forth  the  Messiah  as  the 
bearer  of  the  sins  than  the  healer  of  the  sicknesses  of  his  people.  As 
far  as  the  words  go,  St.  Matthew  is  nearer  to  the  original,  which  declares 
he  came  under  our  sicknesses  and  our  sorrows,  the  penal  consequences 
of  our  sins.  And  any  apparent  difference  between  the  two  sacred  wri- 
ters of  the  New  Testament  vanishes  when  we  keep  in  mind  the  intimate 

* Gerhard  {Harm.  Evang.,  c.  38) : Simul  vero  docemur,  quando  spiritualitur  sa- 
nati  sumus,  ut  membra  nostra  prsebeamus  arma  justitise  Dei  [Deo  ?]  et  ipsi  serviamus 
in  justitia  et  sanctitate  coram  ipso,  inservientes  proximo,  et  membris  Christi,  sicut 
hsec  muliercula  Christo  et  discipulis  ministrat. 

f In  Cramer’s  Catena,  v.  1,  p.  278. 

J St.  Matthew  here  forsakes  the  Septuagint,  which  would  not  have  answered  his 
purpose,  ( ovrog  rdg  ayapriag  fjy Qv  <j>epei,  sal  nepl  rjyCtv  ddvvurai,)  and  gives  an  inde- 
pendent translation. 


194  THE  HEALING  OF  SIMONS  WIFE’S  MOTHER. 


connection  which  in  Scripture  ever  appears  between  moral  and  physical 
suffering  ; and  not  in  Scriptnre  only  ; for  many,  probably  all,  languages 
have  a word  answering  to  our  “evil,”  which  bears  in  its  double 
meaning  of  sin  and  of  calamity,  the  deepest  witness — for  no  witness  is 
so  deep  as  the  involuntary  witness  of  language — to  this  connection. 

But  the  application  of  the  verse  is  more  embarrassing.  Those  who 
have  best  right  to  be  heard  on  the  matter,  deny  that  “ Sore”  can  mean 
“ bore  away,”  or  that  “ took  ” can  be  accepted  in  the  sense  of 
“ removed,”  and  affirm  that  the  words  must  mean  a taking  upon  himself 
the  sufferings  and  sorrows  from  which  he  delivered  his  people.  But  in 
what  sense  did  our  Lord  take  upon  himself  the  sicknesses  which  he 
healed  1 Does  it  not  seem  rather  that  he  abolished  them,  and  removed 
them  altogether  out  of  the  way  1 It  is  no  doubt  a perfectly  Scriptural 
thought,  that  Christ  is  the  xa^apjxa,  the  piaculum,  who  is  to  draw  to  him- 
self all  the  evils  of  the  world,  in  whom  all  are  to  centre,  that  in  him  all 
may  be  abolished  and  done  away ; — yet  he  did  not  become  this  through 
the  healing  of  diseases,  any  more  than  through  any  other  isolated  acts 
of  his  life  and  conversation.  He  was  not  more  this  piacular  expia. 
tion  after  he  had  healed  these  sicknesses  than  before.  We  can  under 
stand  his  being  said  in  his  death  and  in  his  passion  to  come  himself  undei 
the  burden  of  those  sufferings  and  pains  from  which  he  released  others ; 
but  how  can  this  be  affirmed  of  him  when  he  was  engaged  in  works  of 
beneficent  activity?  Then  he.  was  rather  chasing  away  diseases  and 
pains  altogether,  than  himself  undertaking  them.* 

An  explanation,  which  has  found  favor  with  many,  has  been  sug- 
gested by  those  words  which  we  have  already  noticed,  that  his  labors 
were  not  ended  with  the  day,  but  protracted  far  into  the  evening, — so 
that  he  removed  indeed  sicknesses  from  others,  but  with  painfulness  to 
himself,  and  with  the  weariness  attendant  upon  labors  unseasonably 
drawn  out ; and  thus  may  not  unfitly  be  said  to  have  taken  those  sick- 
nesses on  himself. f Olshausen,  though  in  a somewhat  more  spiritual 

* Some  have  been  tempted  to  make  here  2,afi/3dvetv  and  fiaaru.&iv  — utycupeiv. 
(So  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.,  1.  3,  c.  17 : abstulit.)  But  this  plainly  will  not  suit  with 
the  original,  where  Messias  is  described  not  as  the  physician  of,  but  the  sufferer  for, 
men ; or  at  least  only  the  first  through  being  the  second. 

f So  Woltzogen,  whom,  despite  his  Socinian  tendencies,  here  Witsius  ( Meletem . 
Leidens.,  p.  402)  quotes  with  approbation : Adeo  ut  locus  hie  prophetae  bis  fuerit 
adimpletus ; semel  cum  Christus  corporis  morbos  abstulit  ab  hominibus  non  sine  sum- 
ma  molestia  ac  defatigatione,  dum  ad  vesperam  usque  circa  aegrorum  curationem  oc- 

cupatus,  quodammodo  ipsas  hominum  aegritudines  in  se  recipiebat AlterS,  vice, 

cum  suis  perpessionibus  ac  morte  spiritualiter  morbos  nostrorum  peccatorum  a nobis 
sustulit.  Cf.  Grotius  in  loc.  Theophylact  had  led  the  way  to  this  explanation,  find- 
ing an  emphasis  in  the  fact  that  the  sick  were  brought  to  Jesus  in  the  evening,  out  of 


THE  HEALING  OF  SIMONAS  WIFE'S  MOTHER. 


195 


manner,  gives  the  same  explanation.  He  says,  the  obscurity  of  the 
passage  only  disappears  when  we  learn  to  think  more  really  of  the 
healing  activity  of  Christ,  as  an  actual  outstreaming  and  outbreaking  of 
the  fulness  of  his  imier  life.  As  therefore  physical  exertion  physically 
wearied  him,  (John  iv.  6,)  so  did  spiritual  activity  long  drawn  out  spi- 
ritually exhaust  him,  and  this  exhaustion,  as  all  other  forms  of  suffering, 
he  underwent  for  our  sakes.  A statement  questionable  in  its  doctrine : 
moreover,  I cannot  believe  that  the  Evangelist  meant  to  lay  any  such 
stress  upon  the  unusual  or  prolonged  labors  of  this  day,  or  that  he 
would  not  as  willingly  have  quoted  these  words  in  relating  any  other 
cure  or  cures  which  the  Lord  performed.  Not  this  day  only,  even  had 
it  been  a day  of  especial  weariness,  but  every  day  of  his  earthly  life 
was  a coming  under,  upon  his  part,  of  the  evils  which  he  removed  from 
others.  Eor  that  which  is  the  law  of  all  true  helping,  namely,  that  the 
burden  which  you  would  lift,  you  must  yourself  stoop  to  and  come 
under,  (Gal.  vi.  2,)  the  grief  which  you  would  console,  you  must  your- 
self feel  with, — a law  which  we  witness  to  as  often  as  we  use  the  words 
“sympathy”  and  “compassion,” — was,  of  course,  eminently  true  in 
him  upon  whom  the  help  of  all  was  laid.*  Not  in  this  single  aspect  of 
his  life,  namely,  that  he  was  a healer  of  sicknesses,  were  these  words 
of  the  prophet  fulfilled,  but  rather  in  the  life  itself,  which  brought  him  in 
contact  with  these  sicknesses  and  these  discords  of  man’s  inner  being, 
every  one  of  which  as  a real  consequence  of  sin,  and  as  being  at  every 
moment  contemplated  by  him  as  such,  did  press  with  a living  pang  into 
the  holy  soul  of  the  Lord.  Not  so  much  the  healing  of  these  sicknesses 
was  Christ’s  bearing  of  them  ; but  his  burden  was  that  there  were  these 
sicknesses  to  heal.  He  “ Sore”  them,  inasmuch  as  he  bore  the  mortal 
suffering  life,  in  which  alone  he  could  bring  them  to  an  end,  and  at 
length  swallow  up  death  in  victory. 

season,  (napd,  ncupov ,)  though  he  does  not  bring  that  circumstance  into  connection 
with  these  words  of  Isaiah. 

* Hilary  (in  loc.) : Passione  corporis  sui  infirmitates  humanae  imbecillitatis  ab- 
sorbent In  Schoettgen’s  Hor.  Heb.  (in  loc.),  there  is  a remarkable  quotation  to  the 
same  effect  from  the  book  Sohar. 


XIV. 


THE  RAISING  OF  THE  WIDOW’S  SON. 

Luke  vii.  11—16. 

The  city  whither  our  Lord  was  hound,  and  at  the  gate  of  which  this 
great  miracle  was  wrought,  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere  in  Scripture. 
It  lay  upon  the  southern  border  of  Galilee,  and  on  the  road  to  J erusa- 
lem,  whither  our  Lord  was  probably  now  going  to  keep  the  second 
passover  of  his  new  ministry.  That  our  Lord  should  meet  the  funeral 
at  the  gate  of  the  city,  while  it  belonged  no  doubt  to  the  wonder-works 
of  God’s  grace,  while  it  was  one  of  those  marvellous  coincidences  which, 
seeming  accidental,  are  yet  deep  laid  in  the  councils  of  his.  wisdom  and 
of  his  love,  is  at  the  same  time  a natural  circumstance,  to  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  J ews  did  not  suffer  the  interring  of  the  dead  in 
towns,  but  had  their  burial-places  without  the  walls.  Probably  there 
was  very  much  in  the  circumstances  of  the  sad  procession  which  he 
now  met,  to  arouse  the  compassion  even  of  them  who  were  not  touched 
with  so  lively  a feeling  for  human  sorrows  as  was  the  compassionate 
Saviour  of  men ; and  it  was  this  which  had  brought  that  “ much  people ” 
to  accompany  the  bier.  Indeed,  there  could  little  be  added  to  the  words 
of  the  Evangelist,  whose  whole  narrative  here,  apart  from  its  deeper 
interest,  is  a master-work  for  its  perfect  beauty — there  could  be  little 
added  to  it  to  make  the  picture  of  desolation  more  complete — “ There 
was  a dead  man  carried  out*  the  only  son  of  his  mother , and  she  was  a 
ividow .”  The  bitterness  of  the  mourning  for  an  only  son  had  passed 
into  a proverb ; thus,  Jer.  vi.  26,  “ Make  thee  mourning  as  for  an  only 
son,  most  bitter  lamentations;”  and  Zech.  xii.  10,  “They  shall  mourn 
for  him  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only  son;”  Amos  viii.  10,  “I  will 
make  it  as  the  mourning  of  an  only  son.” 

* ’E &Koji%eTo.  The  technical  word  ia  and  the  carrying  out,  kK<f>opa „ 


197 


THE  BAKING  OF  THE  WIDOW’S  SON. 

“ And  when  the  Lord  saw  her , he  had  compassion  on  her , and  said 
unto  her , Weep  not”  How  different  this  “ Weep  not”  from  the  “ Weep 
not”  which  often  proceeds  from,  the  lips  of  earthly  comforters,  who, 
even  while  they  speak  the  words,  give  no  reason  why  the  mourner 
should  cease  from  weeping ; hut  he  that  is  come  that  he  may  one  day 
make  good  that  word,  “ God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes, 
and  there  shall  he  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor  crying,  neither 
shall  there  be  any  more  pain,”  (Rev.  xxi.  4,)  does  show  now  some 
effectual  glimpses  of  his  power,  wiping  away,  though  not  yet  for  ever, 
the  tears  from  the  weeping  eyes  of  that  desolate  mother.  Yet,  as 
Olshausen  has  observed,  it  would  he  an  error  to  suppose  that  compas- 
sion for  the  mother  was  the  determining  motive  for  this  mighty  spiritual 
act  on  the  part  of  Christ : for,  in  that  case,  had  the  joy  of  the  mother 
been  the  only  object  which  he  had  in  view,  the  young  man  who  was 
raised  would  have  been  used  merely  as  a means , which  yet  no  man  can 
ever  be.  That  joy  of  the  mother  was  indeed  the  nearest  consequence  of 
the  act,  but  not  the  final  cause ; — that,  though  at  present  hidden,  was, 
no  doubt,  the  spiritual  awakening  of  the  young  man  for  a higher  life, 
through  which,  indeed,  alone  the  joy  of  the  mother  became  a true  and 
an  abiding  joy. 

The  drawing  nigh  and  touching  the  bier  was  meant  as  an  intima- 
tion to  the  bearers  that  they  should  arrest  their  steps,  and  one  which 
they  understood,  for  immediately  u they  that  bare  him  stood  still.”  Then 
follows  the  word  of  power,  and  spoken,  as  ever,  in  his  own  name, 
“ Young  man,  I say . unto  thee , Arise;” — I,  that  am  the  Resurrection 
and  the  Life,  quickening  “the  dead,  and  calling  those  things  which  be 
not,  as  though  they  were.”  And  that  word  was  heard,  for  ilhe  that  was 
dead  sat  up , and  began  to  speak”  Christ  rouses  from  the  bier  as  easily 
as  another  would  rouse  from  the  bed,* — different  in  this  even  from  his 
own  messengers  and  ministers  in  the  Old  Covenant ; for  they,  not  with- 
out an  effort,  not  without  a long  and  earnest  wrestling  with  God,  won 
back  its  prey  from  the  jaws  of  death ; and  this,  because  there  dwelt  not 
the  fulness  of  power  in  them,  who  were  but  as  servants  in  the  house  of 
another,  not  as  a son  in  his  own  house. | 

* Augustine  (Serm.  98,  c.  2):  Nemo  tam  facile  excitat  in  lecto,  quam  facile 
Christus  in  sepulcro. 

f See  what  has  been  said  already,  p.  33.  Thus  too  Massillon,  in  a sermon  Sur  la 
Divinite  de  Jesus-  Christ , has  these  eloquent  remarks : Elie  ressuscite  des  morts,  il  est 
vrai ; mais  il  est  oblige  de  se  coucher  plusieurs  fois  sur  le  corps  de  l’enfant  qu’il 
ressuscite  : il  souffle,  il  se  retrecit,  il  s’agite : on  voit  bien  qu’il  invoque  une  puissance 
Strangere : qu’il  rappelle  de  l’empire  de  la  mort  une  dme  qui  n’est  pas  soumise  a sa 
voix : et  qu’il  n’est  par  lui-meme  le  maitre  de  la  mort  et  de  la  vie.  Jesus-Christ 


198 


THE  RAISINO  OF  THE  WIDOW’S  SON. 

'’‘And  he  delivered  him  to  his  mother  A (Cf.  1 Kin.  xvii.  23 ; 2 Kin. 
iv.  36.)  He  who  did  this,  shall  once,  when  he  has  spoken  the  great 
“Arise,”  which  shall  awaken  not  one, # but  all  the  dead,  deliver  all  the 
divided,  that  have  fallen  asleep  in  him,  to  their  beloved  for  personal  re- 
cognition and  for  a special  fellowship  of  joy,  amid  the  universal  glad- 
ness and  communion  of  love  which  shall  then  fill  all  hearts.  We  have 
the  promise  and  pledge  of  this  in  the  three  raisings  from  the  dead 
which  prefigure  that  coming  resurrection.  The  effects  of  this  miracle  on 
those  present  were  for  good;  “ There  came  a fear  on  all,”  a holy  fear, 
a sense  that  they  were  standing  in  the  presence  of  some  great  one; 
“ and  they  glorified  God,” — praised  him  for  his  mercy  in  remembering 
and  visiting  his  people  Israel, — “ saying  that  a great  prophet  is  risen  up 
among  us  A — They  concluded  that  no  ordinary  prophet  was  among 
them,  but  a “great”  one,  since  none  but  the  very  greatest  prophets  of 
the  olden  times,  an  Elijah  or  an  Elisha  had  brought  the  dead  to  life. 
In  their  other  exclamation,  “ God  hath  visited  his  people ,”  lay  no  less  an 
allusion  to  the  long  periods  during  which  they  had  been  without  a pro- 
phet, so  that  it  might  have  seemed,  and  many  might  have  almost  feared, 
that  the  last  of  these  had  arrived.* 

ressuscite  les  morts  comme  il  fait  les  actions  les  plus  communes ; il  parle  en  maitre 
k ceux  qui  dorment  d’un  sommeil  eternel ; et  l’on  sent  bien  qu’il  est  le  Dieu  dea 
morts  comme  des  vivans,  jamais  plus  tranquille  que  lorsqu’il  opere  les  plus  grandea 
clioses. 

* Philostratus  ( Vita  Apollonii , 1.  4,  c.  45)  relates  a miracle  as  performed  by 
Apollonius,  which  is  evidently  framed  in  imitation  and  rivalry  of  this.  (See  what 
has  been  said  on  this  rivalry,  p.  56,  and  in  Baur’s  Apollonius  und  Christus,  p.  40.) 
Apollonius  met  one  day  in  the  streets  of  Rome  a damsel  carried  out  to  burial,  fol- 
lowed by  him  to  whom  she  was  espoused,  and  a weeping  company.  He  bade  them 
set  down  the  bier,  saying  that  he  would  stanch  their  tears,  and  having  inquired  her 
name,  whispered  something  in  her  ear,  and  then  taking  her  by  the  hand,  he  raised 
her  up,  and  she  began  straightway  to  speak,  and  returned  to  her  father’s  house.  Yet 
Philostratus  does  not  relate  th’s  as  probably  having  been  more  than  an  awakening 
from  the  deep  swoon  of  an  apparent  death,  ( a<j>vnvLae  ttjv  Koprjv  rod  Sokovvtoq  Oavu- 
tov,)  and  suggests  an  explanation  that  reminds  one  of  the  modern  ones  of  Paulus  and 
his  school, — that  Apollonius  perceived  in  her  a spark  of  life  which  had  escaped  the 
notice  of  her  physicians  and  attendants ; but  whether  it  was  this,  or  that  he  did 
really  kindle  in  her  anew  the  spark  of  an  extinguished  life,  he  acknowledges  it  im- 
possible for  him,  even  as  it  was  for  the  bystanders,  to  say. 


XV. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 

John  y.  1 — 16. 


One  who  is  perhaps  the  ablest  among  the  commentators  of  the  Romish 
communion  begins  his  observations  on  this  act  of  healing  with  the  ex- 
pression of  his  hearty  wish  that  the  sacred  historian  had  added  a single 
word  to:  its  narrative,  and  told  us  at  what  u feast  of  the  Jews'1'1  it  was 
wrought.*-  Certainly  an  infinite  amount  of  learned  discussion  would  so 
have  been  saved ; for  this  question  has  been  greatly  debated,  not  merely 
for  its  own  sake,  but  because  of  the  important  bearing  which  it  has  upon 
the  whole  chronology  of  St.  John’s  Gospel,  and  therefore  of  our  Lord’s 
life ; for  if  we  cannot  determine  the  duration  of  his  actual  ministry 
from  the  helps  which  are  supplied  by  this  Gospel,  we  shall  seek  in  vain 
to  do  it  from  the  others.  If  it  can  be  proved  that  this  “ feast  of  the  Jews ” 
was  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  then  St.  John  makes  mention  of  four  dis- 
tinct Passovers,  three  besides  this  present,  ii.  13 ; vi.  4 ; and  the  last ; 
and  we  shall  get  to  the  three  years  and  a half,  the  half  of  a week  of 
years  for  the  length  of  Christ’s  ministry,  which  many,  with  just  reason, 
as  it  seems,  have  thought  they  found  intimated  and  designated  before- 
hand for  it  in  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  (ix.  27).  But  if  this  feast  be 
that  of  Pentecost,  or,  as  in  later  times  many  have  been  inclined  to 
accept  it,  the  feast  of  Purim,  then  the  view  drawn  from  the  prophecy 
of  Daniel,  of  the  duration  of  Christ’s  ministry,  however  likely  in  itself, 
will  yet  derive  no  proof  or  confirmation  from  dates  supplied  by  St. 
John ; nor  will  it  be  possible  to  make  out  from  him,  with  any  certainty, 

*Maldonatus,  who  seems  almost  inclined  to  fall  out  with  St.  John  that  he  has  not 
done  so : Magna  nos  Joannes  molestia  contentioneque  liberasset,  si  vel  unum  adje 
cissit  verbum,  quo  quis  ille  Judaeorum  dies  fuisset  festus  declarasset. 


200 


THE  HEALIHG  OE  THE 


a period  of  more  than  between  two  and  three  years  from  our  Lord’s 
baptism  to  his  death. 

And  first  with  regard  to  the  history  of  the  passage,  we  have  no  older 
view  than  that  of  Irenseus.  Replying  to  the  Gnostics,  who  pressed  the 
words  of  Isaiah,  “ the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,”  to  make  them  mean 
literally  that  our  Lord’s  ministry  lasted  but  a single  year,  he  enumerates 
the  Passovers  of  our  Lord’s  life,  and  expressly  includes  this.*  Origen 
however  and  the  Alexandrians,  who  held  with  the  Gnostics  that  our 
Lord’s  ministry  lasted  but  a single  year,  resting  upon  the  same  phrase, 
“the  year  of  the  Lord,”  did  not,  as  indeed  consistently  they  could  not, 
agree  with  Irenseus ; nor  did  the  Greek  Church  generally  ; Chrysostom, 
Cyril,  Theophylact,  take  it  for  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  At  a later 
period,  however,  Theodoret,  wishing  to  confirm  his  view  of  the  half 
week  in  Daniel,  refers  to  St.  John  in  proof  that  the  Lord’s  ministry 
lasted  for  three  years  and  a half,f  implying  that  for  him  this  feast  was  a 
Passover.  This,  too,  was  the  view  of  Luther,  Calvin,  and  it  derived 
additional  support  from  Scaliger’s  adherence  to  it ; and  were  the  ques- 
tion only  between  it  and  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  the  point  would  have 
been  settled  long  ago,  as  now  on  all  sides  the  latter  is  given  up. 

But  in  modern  times  another  scheme  has  been  started,  which  at  pre- 
sent divides  the  voices  of  interpreters,  and  has  not  a few  in  its  favor, 
namely,  that  this  feast  is  a feast  of  Purim ; that  namely  which  went  imme- 
diately before  the  second  Passover  of  our  Lord’s  ministry,];  for  such  in 
that  case  would  be  the  one  named  John  vi.  4.  But  the  view  of  Irenaeus 
that  this  present  “ feast  of  the  Jews ” is  itself  a Passover,  and  the 
second — that  other  consequently  the  third — though  not  unencumbered 
with  difficulties,  yet  is  not,  I think,  to  be  exchanged  for  this  newer 
theory.  It  is  perplexing,  as  must  be  admitted,  to  find  another  Passover 
occurring  so  very  soon  (vi.  4).  Nor  may  we  press  the  argument,  that 
St.  John  making  mention  of  “ the  feast ” without  further  addition,  means 
always  the  chief  feast,  the  Passover ; for  the  examples  adduced  do  not 
bear  this  out : he  does  indeed  use  this  language,  yet  always  with  allusion 

* Con.  Hcer.,  1.  a,  c.  22 : Secunda  vice  ascendit  in  diem  festum  Paschm  in  Hieru- 
salem,  quando  paralyticum  qni  juxta  natatoriam  jacebat  xxxviii  annos  curavit. 

f Comm,  in  Dan.  (in  loc.) 

f:  This  view  was  first  suggested  by  Kepler.  Hug  has  done  every  thing  for  it  that 
could  be  done  to  make  it  plausible ; and  among  the  valuable  later  German  commenta- 
tors on  St.  John,  Tholuck  and  Olshausen  are  decidedly,  and  Liicke  somewhat  doubt- 
fully, adherents  to  this  opinion.  So,  too,  Neander,  ( Leben  Jesu.,  p.  430.,)  and  Jacobi, 
in  the  Theoll.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  v.  11,  p.  861,  seq.  Both  he  and  Liicke  enter  very  tho 
roughly  into  the  question.  Hengstenberg  ( Christologie , v 2,  p.  561)  earnestl; 
opposes  it  and  maintains  the  earlier,  as  does  Paulus. 


ft 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


201 


to  some  mention  of  the  feast  made  shortly  before.*  But  the  argument 
which  mainly  prevails  with  me  is  this — the  Evangelist  clearly,  connects 
the  Lord’s  coming  to  Jerusalem  with  the  keeping  of  this  feast;  it  was  to 
celebrate  the  feast  he  came.  But  there  was  nothing  in  the  feast  of  Purim 
to  draw  him  thither.  It  was  no  religious  feast  at  all;  but  only  a 
popular;  of  human,  not  of  divine  institution.  There  was  no  temple 
service  pertaining  to  it;  but  men  kept  it  at  their  own  houses.  And 
though  naturally  it  would  have  been  celebrated  at  Jerusalem  with  more 
pomp  and  circumstance  than  any  where  besides,  yet  there  was  nothing 
in  its  feasting  and  its  rioting,  its  intemperance  and  excess,  which  would 
have  made  our  Lord  particularly  desirous  to  sanction  it  with  his  presence. 
As  far  as  Mordecai  and  Esther  and  the  deliverance  wrought  in  their  days 
stand  below  Moses  and  Aaron  and  Miriam  and  the  glorious  redemption 
from  Egypt,  so  in  true  worth,  in  dignity,  in  religious  significance,  stood 
the  feast  of  Purim  below  the  feast  of  the  Passover ; however  a carnal 
generation  may  have  been  inclined  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
that,  in  the  past  events  and  actual  celebration  of  which,  there  was 
so  much  to  flatter  the  carnal  mind.  There  is  an  extreme  improbability 
in  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  this  which  attracted  our  Lord  to  Jerusa- 
lem; and  these  considerations  strongly  prevail  with  me  to  believe  that 
the  earlier  view  is  the  most  accurate,  and  that  this  feast  which  our 
blessed  Lord'  adorned  with  his  presence  and  signalized  with  this  great 
miracle,  is  “ the  feast,”  that  feast  which  is  the  mother  of  all  the  rest,  the 
Passover. 

The  scene  of  this  miracle  was  the  immediate  neighborhoodf  of  the 
pool  of  Bethesda.|  It  has  been  common  for  many  centuries  to  point 

* More  oven  the  article  before  eoprg  should  most  likely  find  no  place.  Our  trans- 
lators have  not  recognized  it. 

f It  was  wrought  em  rrj  TcpofianKij,  which  should  be  completed,  not  as  we  have 
done  it  with  uyopd,  but  with  Tzv’hy,  (see  Neh.  iii.l ; xii.  39,  LXX.,  rcvTirj  ir poplar ucrj,) 
and  translated  “by  the  sheep  gate ,”  rather  than  “by  the  sheep  market”  The 
transcribers  were  unacquainted  with  the  localities  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  construction 
of  the  passage  was  not  very  clear,  and  thus  a considerable  number  of  variations  have 
crept  in  ; but  the  commonly  received  reading  has  been  adopted  as  the  best  founded 
by  all  later  critics.  Ko7ivp/3^dpa  = natatoria,  (cf.  John  ix.  I,)  from  K.olvp(3du,  to  dive, 
or  swim.  W e meet  the  word  Eccles.  ii.  6,  LXX.,  for  the  reservoir  of  a garden.  It 
is  used  in  ecclesiastical  language  alike  for  the  building  in  which  baptisms  are  per- 
formed (the  baptistery),  and  the  font  which  contains  the  water.  (See  Suicer’s  Then., 
s.  vv.  ftaTTriarripiov  and  Ko7ivpj3?jdpa.) 

^ Brjdeadu  = domus  misericordim.  This  word  also,  which  was  strange  to  the  trans- 
cribers, has  been  written  in  many  ways.  Some  have  appealed,  as  Bengel  for  instance, 
to  this  passage,  ks  important  for  fixing  the  date  when  this  Gospel  was  written,  as  prov- 
ing, at  least,  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Yet  in  truth  it 

26 


202 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE 


out  the  large  excavation  near  the  gate  now  called  St.  Stephen’s  gate,  as 
the  ancient  Bethesda.*  It  is  true  that  its  immense  depth,  seventy-live 
feet,  had  perplexed  many ; yet  the  incurious  ease  which  has  misnamed 
so  much  in  the  Holy  Land  and  in  Jerusalem,  had  remained  without 
being  seriously  challenged,  until  Robinson,  our  latest,  as  in  the  main 
our  best,  authority  on  all  such  matters,  among  the  many  traditions  which 
he  has  disturbed,  affirms  that  “ there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  which 
can  identify  it  with  the  Bethesda  of  the  New  Testament.”!  Nor  does 
the  tradition  which  identifies  them  ascend  higher,  as  he  can  discover, 
than  the  thirteenth  century.  He  sees  in  that  rather  the  remains  of  the 
ancient  fosse  which  protected  on  the  north  side  the  citadel  Antonia ; and 
the  true  Bethesda  he  thinks  he  finds,  though  on  this  he  speaks  not  with 
any  certainty,  in  that  which  goes  now  by  the  name  of  the  Fountain  of 
the  Virgin,  being  the  upper  fountain  of  Siloam. j; 

In  the  porches  round  “ lay  a great  multitude  of  impotent  folk,  blind, 
halt,  and  withered the  words  which  complete  this  verse,  “ waiting  for 
the  moving  of  the  water  f lie  under  strong  suspicion,  as  the  verse  follow- 


does  not  prove  any  thing.  St.  John  might  still  have  said,  “There  is  at  Jerusalem  a 
pool,”  while  that  had  remained,  surviving  the  destruction ; or  might  have  written 
with  that  vivid  recalling  of  the  past,  which  caused  him  to  speak  of  it  as  existing  yet. 
The  various  reading  f/v  for  ken  is  no  doubt  to  be  traced  to  transcribers,  who  being 
rightly  persuaded  that  this  Gospel  was  composed  after  the  destruction  of  the  city, 
thought  that  St.  John  could  not  have  otherwise  written. 

* Rohr,  in  his  Palestina,  p.  66,  does  so  without  a misgiving. 

f Biblical  Researches , v.  1,  p.  489,  seq. 

f;  He  was  himself  witness  of  that  remarkable  phenomenon,  so  often  mentioned  of 
old,  as  by  Jerome  {In  Isai.  viii.) : Siloe  ....  qui  non  jugibus  aquis,  sed  in  certis  horis 
diebusque  ebulliat ; et  per  terrarum  concava  et  antra  saxi  durissimi  cum  magno  sonitu 
veniat ; — but  which  had  of  late  fallen  quite  into  discredit, — of  the  waters  rapidly 
bubbling  up,  and  rising  witli  a gurgling  sound  in  the  basin  of  this  fountain,  and  in  a 
few  minutes  retreating  again.  When  he  was  present  they  rose  nearly  or  quite  a foot. 
{Researches,  v.  1,  pp.  506 — 508.)  Prudentius,  whom  he  does  not  quote,  has  antici- 
pated the  view  that  this  Siloam  is  Bethesda,  and  that  in  this  phenomenon  is  “ the 
troubling  of  the  water,”  howeve-  the  healing  virtue  may  have  departed. 

Variis  Siloa  refundit 

Momentis  latices,  nec  fluctum  semper  anlielat, 

Sed  vice  distincta  largos  lacus  accipit  haustus. 

Agmina  languentum  sitiunt  spem  fontis  avari, 

Membrorum  maculas  puro  ablutura  natatu; 

Certatim  interea  roranti  pumice  raucas 
Expectant  scatebras,  et  sicco  margine  pendent. 

Perhaps  it  is  not  a slip  of  memory,  but  his  belief  in  the  identity  of  Siloam  and  Be- 
thesda, which  makes  Iren  reus  ( Con.  Peer.,  1.  4,  c.  8)  to  say  of  our  Lord : Et  SiloS 
Btiam  srepe  Sabbatis  curavit ; et  propter  hoc  assidebant  ei  multi  die  Sabbatorum. 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


203 


ing  has  undoubtedly  no  right  to  a place  in  the  text.  That  fourth  verse 
the  most  important  Greek  and  Latin  copies  are  alike  without,  and  most 
of  the  early  versions.  In  other  MSS.  which  retain  this  verse,  the  obelus 
which  hints  suspicion,  or  the  asterisk  which  marks  rejection,  is  attached 
to  it  ;* * * §  while  those  in  which  it  appears  unquestioned  belong  mostly,  as 
Griesbach  shows,  to  a later  recension  of  the  text.  And  this  fourth 
verse  spreads  the  suspicion  of  its  own  spuriousness  over  the  last  clause 
of  the  verse  preceding,  which,  though  it  has  not  so  great  a body  of  evi- 
dence against  it,  has  yet,  in  a less  degree,  the  same  marks  of  sus- 
picion about  it.  Doubtless  whatever  here  is  addition,  whether  only 
the  fourth  verse,  or  the  last  clause  also  of  the  third,  found  very  early 
its  way  into  the  text ; we  have  it  as  early  as  Tertullian, — the  first 
witness  for  its  presence. f The  baptismal  angel,  a favorite  thought 
with  him,  was  here  foreshowed  and  typified ; as,  somewhat  later, 
Ambrose^  saw  a prophecy  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
consecrating  the  waters  of  baptism  to  the  mystical  washing  away 
of  sin ; and  Chrysostom  and  others  make  frequent  use  of  this 
verse.§  At  first  probably  a marginal  note,  expressing  the  popular 
notion  of  the  Jewish  Christians  concerning  the  origin  of  the  healing 
power  which  from  time  to  time  these  waters  possessed,  by  degrees  it 
assumed  the  shape  in  which  now  we  have  it : for  there  are  marks  of 
growth  about  it,  betraying  themselves  in  a great  variety  of  readings, 
— some  copies  omitting  one  part,  and  some  another  of  the  verse — all 


* In  Jerome’s  phrase,  though  not  used  with  reference  to  this  verse,  Veru  jugulante 
confossum  est. 

f Be  Bapt,  c.  5:  Angelum  aquis  intervenire,  si  novum  videtur,  exemplum 
futurum  praecucurrit.  Piscinam  Bethsaida  angelus  interveniens  commovebat ; obser- 
vabant  qui  valetudinem  querebantur.  Nam  si  quis  praevenerat  descendere  illuc,  queri 
post  lavacrum  desinebat.  Figura  ista  medicinae  corporalis  spiritalem  medicinam 
canebat,  ea  forma  qua  semper  carnalia  in  figura  spiritalium  antecedunt.  Proficiente 
itaque  hominibus  gratia  Dei  plus  aquis  et  angelo  accessit : qui  vitia  corporis  remedi- 
abant,  nunc  spiritum  medentui  : qui  temporalem  operabantur  salutem,  nunc  aeternam 
reformant : qui  unum  semel  anno  liberabant,  nunc  quotidie  populos  conservant.  It 
will  be  observed  that  he  calls  it  above,  the  pool  Bethsaida  ; this  is  not  by  accident, 
for  it  recurs  ( Adv . Jud,  c.  13)  in  Augustine,  and  is  still  in  the  Yulgate. 

\ Be  Spir.  Sand.,  1.  1,  c.  *7 : Quid  in  hoc  typo  Angelus  nisi  discensionem  Sancti 
Spiritus  nuntiabat,  quae  nostris  futura  temporibus,  aquas  sacerdotalibus  invocata 
precibus  consecraiet  ? and  Be  Myst.,  c.  4 : Ulis  Angelus  descendebat,  tibi  Spiritus 
Sanctus  ; illis  creatura  movebatur,  tibi  Christus  operatur  ipse  Dominus  creaturae. 

§ Thus  he  says  {In  Joh.,  Horn.  36) : “ As  there  it  was  rft)t  simply  the  nature  of 
the  waters  which  healed,  for  then  they  would  have  always  done  so,  but  when  was 
added  the  energy  of  the  angel ; so  with  us,  it  is  not  simply  the  water  which  works, 
but  when  it  has  received  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  then  it  washes  away  all  sins.” 


204 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE 


which  is  generally  the  sign  of  a later  addition  : thus,  little  by  little,  it 
procured  admission  into  the  text,  probably  at  Alexandria  first,  the  birth- 
place of  other  similiar  additions.  There  is  nothing  in  the  statement 
itself  which  might  not  have  found  place  in  St.  John.  It  rests  upon  that 
religious  view  of  nature,  which  in  all  nature  sees  something  beyond 
nature,  which  does  not  believe  that  it  has  discovered  causes,  when,  in 
fact,  it  has  only  traced  the  sequence  of  phenomena,  and  which  in  all 
recognizes  a going  forth  of  the  immediate  power  of  God,  invisible  agen- 
cies of  his,  whether  personal  or  otherwise,  accomplishing  his  will.* 

* Hammond’s  explanation  of  this  phenomenon,  which  seems  like  a leaf  borrowed 
from  Dr.  Paulus,  is  very  singular,  both  in  itself,  and  as  coming  from  him.  It  very 
early  awoke  earnest  remonstrances  on  many  sides, — see  for  instance  Witsius,  in  Wolf’s 
Curce  (in  loe.)  The  medicinal  virtues  of  this  pool  he  supposes  were  derived  from  the 
washing  in  it  the  carcasses  and  entrails  of  the  beasts  slain  for  sacrifices.  In  proof  that 
they  were  here  washed,  he  quotes  Brocardus,  a monk  of  the  thirteenth  century ! whose 
authority  would  be  nothing,  and  whose  words  are  these : Intrantibus  porro  portam 
Gregis  ad  sinistram  occurrit  piscina  probatica,  in  qua  Nathinaei  lavabant  hostias  quas 
tradebant  sacerclotibus  in  Templo  offerendas : that  is,  as  every  one  must  confess,  washed 
their  fleeces  before  delivering  them  to  be  offered  by  the  priests.  Some  in  later  times 
have  amended  this  part  of  the  theory,  who,'  knowing  that  the  sacrifices  were  washed 
in  the  temple  and  not  without  it,  have  supposed  that  the  blood  and  other  animal 
matter  was  drained  off  by  conduits  into  this  pool.  But  to  proceed, — the  pool,  he  says, 
possessed  these  healing  powers  only  at  intervals,  because  only  at  their  great  feasts, 
and  eminently  at  their  Passover,  was  there  slain  any  such  great  multitude  of  beasts 
as  could  tinge  and  warm  those  waters,  and  for  the  time  make  them  a sort  of  animal 
bath.  The  uyye'kog  is  not  an  angel,  but  a messenger  or  servant  sent  down  by  those 
who  were  skilled  in  the  matter  to  stir  the  waters,  that  the  grosser  and  thicker  parti- 
cles, in  which  the  chief  medicinal  virtue  resided,  but  which  as  heaviest  would  have 
sunk  to  the  bottom,  might  re-infuse  themselves  in  the  waters.  The  fact  that  only  one 
each  time  was  healed  he  explains,  that  probably  the  pool  was  purposely  of  very  limited 
dimensions,  for  the  concentrating  of  its  virtues,  thus  giving  room  for  no  more  than  one 
at  a time  : and  thus  by  evaporation  or  otherwise  its  strength  was  exhausted  before 
place  could  be  made  for  another.  He  has  here  worked  out  at  length  a theory  which 
Theophylact  makes  mention  of,  although  there  is  no  appearance  that  he  himself  ac- 
cepted it,  as  Hammond  affirms.  Hir-  words  are : E fyov  di  oi  itoTCkol  viro’Xrj^Lv,  on  nal 
utto  gov ov  rov  Trkvveodcu  rd  kvToodia  rtiv  iepELOV  Svva/uv  nvd  hapfiavei  OeioTEpav  to 
vSa<).  And  after  all  it  seems  more  than  doubtful  whether  he  does  not  mean  that  some 
thought  this  grace  was  given  to  the  waters  because  they  were  used  for  washing  the 
altar  sacrifices ; and  not  that  it  was  naturally  imparted  through  that  washing.  Cer- 
tainly what  follows  in  his  exposition  seems  very  nearly  to  prove  this.  This  explana- 
tion has  found  favor  with  one,  a physician  I should  imagine,  (Richter,  Be  Balneo 
Animali,  p.  107,  quoted  by  Winer,  Real  Worterbuch,  s.  v.  Bethesda,)  whose  words 
are  these  : Non  miror  fontem  tanta  adhuc  virtute  animali  hostiarum  calentem,  quippe 
in  proxima  loca  tempestiv&  effusum,  ut  pro  pleniori  partium  miscela  turbatum  triplici 
maxima  infirmorum  classi,  quorum  luculenter  genus  nervosum  laborabat,  profuisse ; 
et  quia  animalis  haec  virtus  cito  cum  calore  aufugit,  et  vappam  inertem,  immo  putrem 
"•elinquit,  iis  tantum  qui  primi  ingressi  sunt,  salutem  attulisse. 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


205 


From  among  the  multitude  that  are  waiting  here,  Christ  singles  out 
one  on  whom  he  will  show  his  power ; — one  only,  for  he  came  not  now 
to  be  the  healer  of  men’s  bodies,  save  only  as  he  could  link  on  to  this 
healing  the  truer  healing  of  their  souls  and  spirits.  One  construction 
of  the  fifth  verse  would  make  the  poor  cripple,  the  present  object  of  his 
healing  love,  to  have  been  actually  waiting  at  the  edge  of  that  pool  for 
the  “ thirty  and  eight  years”*  which  are  named ; while  according  to 
another  construction,  the  thirty-eight  years  express  the  age  of  the  man. 
Neither  is  right,  but  rather  that  which  our  version  gives.  The  eight 
and  thirty  years  are  the  duration,  not  of  his  life,  but  of  his  malady, — 
while  yet  it  is  not  implied  that  he  had  been  expecting  his  healing  from 
that  pool  for  all  that  time ; though,  from  his  own  words,  we  infer  that  he 
had  there  been  waiting  for  it  long.  The  question,  “ Wilt  thou  he  made 
whole  at  first  might  seem  superfluous ; for  who  would  not  be  made 
whole  if  he  might  ? and  the  very  presence  of  this  man  at  the  place,  of 
healing  witnessed  for  his  desire.  But  the  question  has  its  purpose. 
This  impotent  man  probably  had  waited  so  long,  and  so  long  waited  in 
vain,  that  hope  was  dead  or  well-nigh  dead  within  him,  and  the  question 
is  asked  to  awaken  in  him  anew  a yearning  after  the  benefit,  which  the 
Saviour,  compassionating  his  hopeless  case,  was  about  to  impart.  His 
heart  may  have  been  withered  through  his  long  sufferings  and  the  long 
neglects  of  his  fellow-men;  it  was  something  to  persuade  him  that  this 
stranger  pitied  him,  was  interested  in  his  case,  would  help  him  if  he 
could.  So  persuading  him  to  believe  in  his  love,  he  prepared  him  to 
believe  also  in  his  might.  Our  Lord  was  giving  him  now  the  faith, 
which  presently  he  was  about  to  demand  of  him. 

In  the  man’s  answer  there  is  not  a direct  reply  to  the  question,  but 
an  explanation  why  he  yet  continued  in  his  infirmity.  “ Right  gladly, 
Sir,”  he  would  say,  u only  I have  no  man , when  the  water  is  troubled , to 
put  me  into  the  pool.”  The  virtues  of  the  water  disappeared  so  fast, 
they  were  so  preoccupied,  whether  from  the  narrowness  of  the  spot,  or 
from  some  cause  which  we  know  not,  by  the  first  comer,  that  he  who 
through  his  own  infirmity  and  the  lack  of  all  friendly  help  could  never 
be  this  first,  missed  always  the  blessing;  “ While  lam  coming , another 
steppeth  down  before  me”  But  the  long  and  weary  years  of  baffled  ex- 
pectation are  at  length  ended : “ Jesus  saith  unto  him , Rise,  take  up  thy 
bed  and  walk,”  and  the  man  believed  that  power  went  forth  with  that 

* These  thirty  and  eight  years  of  the  man’s  punishment  answering  so  exactly  to 
the  thirty-eight  years  of  Israel’s  punishment  in  the  wilderness  have  not  unnaturally 
led  many,  old  and  new,  (see  Hexgstenbe&g,  Christol.,  v.  2,  p.  568,)  to  find  in  this 
man  a type  of  Israel  after  the  flesh. 


206 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE 


word,  and  making  proof,  he  found  that  it  was  even  so  : “ immediately  the 
man  was  made  whole , and  took  up  his  bed  and  walked .”  It  is  different 
with  him  from  that  other  impotent  man.  (Acts  iii.  2.)  He,  when  he  was 
healed,  walked  and  leaped  and  praised  God.  (ver.  8.)  His  infirmity 
was  no  chastisement  of  an  especial  sin,  for  he  had  been  “lame  from 
his  mother’s  womb.”  But  this  man  shall  carry  his  bed,  a present  me- 
mento of  his  past  sin. 

But  “ the  Jews”  not  here  the  multitude,  but  some  among  the  spiritual 
heads  of  the  nation,  whom  it  is  very  noticeable  that  St.  John  continually 
characterizes  by  this  name,  (i.  19;  vii.  1;  ix.  22;  xviii.  12,  14;)  find 
fault  with  the  man  for  carrying  his  bed  in  obedience  to  Christ’s  com- 
mand, their  reason  being  because  “ the  same  day ” on  which  the  miracle 
was  accomplished  “ was  the  Sabbath and  the  carrying  of  any  burden 
was  one  of  the  expressly  prohibited  works  of  that  day.  Here,  indeed,  they 
had  apparently  an  Old  Testament  ground  to  go  upon,  and  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  Law  from  the  lips  of  a prophet,  to  justify  their  inter- 
ference, and  the  offence  which  they  took.  But  the  man’s  bearing  of  his 
bed  was  not  a work  by  itself ; it  was  merely  the  corollary,  or  indeed 
the  concluding  act,  of  his  healing,  that  by  which  he  should  make  proof 
himself,  and  give  testimony  to  others  of  its  reality.  It  was  lawful  to 
heal  on  the  Sabbath  day ; it  was  lawful  then  to  do  that  which  was  im- 
mediately involved  in  and  directly  followed  on  the  healing.  And  here 
lay  ultimately  the  true  controversy  between  Christ  and  his  adversaries, 
namely,  whether  it  was  most  lawful  to  do  good  on  that  day,  or  to  leave 
it  undone.  (Luke  vi.  9.)  Starting  from  the  unlawfulness  of  leaving 
good  undone,  he  asserted  that  he  was  its  true  keeper,  keeping  it  as  God 
kept  it,  with  the  highest  beneficent  activity,  which  in  his  Father’s  case, 
as  in  his  own,  was  identical  with  deepest  rest, — and  not,  as  they  accused 
him  of  being,  its  breaker.  It  was  because  he  had  himself  “ done  those 
things,”  (see  ver.  16,)  that  the  Jews  persecuted  him,  and  not  for  bidding 
the  man  to  bear  his  bed,  which  was  a mere  accident  and  consequence 
involved  in  what  he  himself  had  wrought.*  This,  however,  first  at- 
tracted their  notice:  whereupon  they  “ said  unto  him  that  was  cured , It 
is  the  Sabbath  day : it  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  carry  thy  bed”  Already 
the  pharisaical  Jews,  starting  from  passages  such  as  Exod.  xxiii.  12; 
xxxi.  13 — 17 ; xxxv.  2,  3 ; Num.  xv.  32 — 36  ; Nehem.  xiii.  15 — 22, 
had  laid  down  such  a multitude  of  prohibitions,  and  drawn  so  infinite  a 
number  of  hair-splitting  distinctions,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see 
Luke  xiii.  15,  16,  that  a plain  and  unlearned  man  could  hardly  come  to 

* Calvin : Non  suum  modo  factum  excusat,  sed  ejus  etiam  qui  grabbatum  suum 
tulit.  Erat  enim  appendix  et  quasi  pars  miraculi,  quia  nihil  quam  ejus  approbatio  erat. 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


201 


know  what  was  forbidden,  and  what  was  permitted.  This  poor  man 
concerned  himself  not  with  these  subtle  casuistries.  He  only  knew 
that  the  man  with  power  to  make  him  whole,  the  man  who  had  shown 
compassion  to  him,  had  bid  him  do  what  he  was  doing,  and  he  is  satis- 
fied with  this  authority : “ He  that  made  me  whole , the  same  said  unto 
me,  Take  up  thy  bed  and  walk.”  * Surely  a good  model  of  an  answer, 
when  the  world  finds  fault  and  is  scandalized  with  what  the  Christian 
is  doing,  contrary  to  its  works  and  ways,  and  to  the  rules  which  it  has 
laid  down ! 

For  this  man,  the  greater  offender,  they  inquire  now,  as  being  the 
juster  object  of  censure  and  punishment : “ Then  asked  they  him , What 
man  is  that  which  said  unto  thee , Take  up  thy  bed  and  walk  ?”  The  ma- 
lignity of  the  questioners,  coming  out  as  it  does  in  the  very  shape  in 
which  they  put  their  question,  is  worthy  of  note.  They  do  not  take  up 
the  poor  man’s  words  on  their  most  favorable  side,  and  that  which  plainly 
would  have  been  the  more  natural ; they  do  not  say,  “ What  man  is  he 
that  made  thee  whole  but,  probably,  themselves  knowing  perfectly 
well,  or  at  least  guessing,  who  his  Healer  was,  yet  wishing  to  undermine 
any  influence  which  he  may  have  obtained  over  this  simple  man, — an 
influence  already  perceptible  in  his  finding  the  authority  of  Jesus  suffi- 
cient to  justify  him  in  his  own  eyes  for  transgressing  their  command- 
ment,— they  insinuate  by  the  form  of  the  question  that  the  man  could 
not  be  from  God,  who  gave  a command  at  which  they,  the  interpreters 
of  God’s  law,  were  so  greatly  aggrieved  and  offended. f 

But  the  man  could  not  point  out  his  benefactor,  for  he  had  already 
withdrawn : “ Jesus  had  conveyed  himself  away,  a multitude  being  in  that 
place.”  Many  say,  as  Grotius  for  instance,  because  he  would  avoid  os- 
tentation and  the  applauses  of  the  people : but  “ a multitude  being  in  that 
place”  may  be  only  mentioned  to  explain  the  facility  with  which  he 
withdrew : he  mingled  with  and  passed  through  the  crowd,  and  so  was 
lost  from  sight  in  an  instant.  W ere  it  not  that  the  common  people 
usually  took  our  Lord’s  part  in  cases  like  the  present,  one  might  imagine 
that  a menacing  crowd  under  the  influence  of  these  chiefs  of  the  Jews 
had  gathered  together  while  this  conversation  was  going  forward  betwixt 
the  healed  cripple  and  themselves,  from  the  violence  of  whom  the  Lord 
withdrew  himself,  his  hour  being  not  yet  come. 

Though  we  cannot  of  course  draw  any  conclusion  from  the  circum- 

* Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  17)  : Non  acciperem  jussionem  a quo  receperam 
sanitatem  ? 

f Grotius : En  raalitise  ingenium ! non  dicunt,  Quis  est  qui  te.  sanavit  ? sed,  Q.uis 
jussit  grabatum  toller e ? Quaerunt  non  quod  mirentur,  sed  quod  calumnientur. 


208 


THE  HEALINGr  OF  THE 


stance,  yet  it  is  a sign  of  good  augury  that  “ Jesus  findeth  him  in  the 
temple ,”  rather  than  any  where  else.  It  is  as  though  he  was  there  re- 
turning thanks  for  the  great  mercy  which  had  been  so  lately  vouchsafed 
him.  (Cf.  Isai.  xxxviii.  22;  Acts  iii.  8.)  And  now  our  Lord,  whose 
purpose  it  ever  was  to  build  upon  the  healing  of  the  body  the  better 
healing  of  the  soul,  suffers  not  this  matter  to  conclude  without  a word 
of  solemn  warning,  a word  which  showed  that  all  the  past  life  of  the 
sufferer  lay  open  and  manifest  before  him ; even  things  done  more  than 
thirty-eight  years  ago,  before,  that  is,  his  own  earthly  life  had  commenced : 
“ Behold , thou  art  made  whole : sin  no  more , lest  a worse  thing  come  unto 
thee ” — a worse  thing  than  those  thirty  and  eight  years  of  pain  and  infir- 
mity! words  which  give  us  an  awful  glimpse  of  the  severity  of  God’s 
judgments.  This  infirmity  had  found  him  a youth  and  left  him  an  old 
man ; it  had  withered  up  all  his  manhood,  and  yet  “ a worse  things  even 
than  this  is  threatened  him,  should  he  sin  again.* 

What  the  past  sin  of  this  sufferer  had  been,  to  which  the  Lord  alludes, 
we  know  not,  but  the  man  himself  knew  very  well ; his  conscience  was 
the  interpreter  of  the  warning.  This  much,  however,  is  plain  to  us; 
that  Christ  did  connect  the  man’s  suffering  with  his  individual  sin ; for 
however  he  rebuked  man’s  uncharitable  way  of  tracing  such  a connec- 
tion, or  the  scheme  of  a Theodice,  which  should  in  every  case  affirm  a 
man’s  personal  suffering  to  be  in  proportion  to  his  personal  guilt,  a 
scheme  which  all  experience  refutes,  much  judgment  being  deferred  and 
awaiting  the  great  day  when  all  things  shall  be  set  on  the  square ; yet 
he  meant  not  thereby  to  deny  that  much,  very  much  of  judgment  is 
even  now  continually  proceeding.  However  unwilling  men  may  be  to 
receive  this,  bringing  as  it  does  God  so  near,  and  making  retribution  so 
real  and  so  prompt  a thing,  yet  is  it  true  not  the  less.  As  some  eagle 
pierced  with  a shaft  feathered  from  its  own  wing,  so  many  a sufferer, 
even  in  this  present  time,  sees  and  cannot  deny  that  it  was  his  own  sin 
that  fledged  the  arrow  of  God’s  judgment,  which  has  pierced  him  and 
brought  him  down.  And  lest  he  should  miss  the  connection,  often- 
times he  is  punished,  it  may  be  himself  sinned  against  by  his  fellow- 
man,  in  the  very  kind  in  which  he  himself  has  sinned  against  others. 
The  deceiver  is  deceived,  as  Jacob;  the  violator  of  the  sanctities  of 
family  life  is  himself  wounded  in  his  tenderest  and  dearest  relations,  as 


* Calvin : Si  nihil  ferulis  proficiat  erga  nos  Deus,  quibus  leniter  nos  tanquam  teneros 
ac  delicatos  filios  humanissimus  pater  castigat,  novam  personam  et  quasi  alienam 
induere  cogitur.  Flagella  ergo  ad  domandum  nostram  ferociam  accipit  ....  Quare 
non  mirum  est  si  atrocioribus  poenis  quasi  malleis  conterat  Deus,  quibus  mediocris 
poena  nihil  prodest : frangi  enim  sequum  est,  qui  corrigi  non  sustinent. 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


209 


was  David.  And  many  a sinner,  who  cannot  read  his  own  doom,  fur  it. 
is  a final  and  a fatal  one,  yet  declares  in  that  doom  to  others  that  there 
is  indeed  a coming  hack  upon  men  of  their  sins : the  grandson  of  Ahab 
is  himself  treacherously  slain  in  the  portion  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite; 
(2  Kin.  ix.  23 ;)  William  Rufus  perishes,  himself  the  third  of  his  family, 
in  the  New  Forest,  the  scene  of  the  sacrilege  and  the  crimes  of  his 
race.* 

But  to  return ; “ The  man  departed , and  told  the  Jews  that  it  was 
Jesus  which  had  made  him  whole.”  Whom  he  did  not  recognize  in  the 
crowd,  he  has  recognized  in  the  temple.  This  is  Augustine’s  remark, 
who  builds  on  it  many  valuable  observations  upon  the  inner  calm  and 
solitude  of  spirit  in  which  alone  we  shall  recognize  the  Lord.f  Yet 
while  these  remarks  may  stand  in  themselves,  they  scarcely  find  place 
here.  The  man  probably  learned  from  the  bystanders  the  name  of  his 
deliverer,  and  went  and  told  it, — scarcely,  as  some  assume,  in  treachery, 
or  to  augment  the  envy  which  was  already  existing  against  him,  at 
least  there  is  not  a trace  of  this  in  the  narrative  itself, — but  gratefully 
proclaiming  aloud  and  to  the  rulers  of  his  nation  the  physician  who  had 
healed  him.J  He  expected,  probably,  in  the  simplicity  of  his  heart, 
that  the  name  of  him,  whose  reputation,  if  not  his  person,  he  had  already 
known,  whom  so  many  counted  as  a prophet,  if  not  as  the  Messiah  him- 
self, would  have  been  sufficient  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  gainsayers. 
Had  it  been  in  a baser  spirit  that  he  went,  as  Chrysostom  ingeniously 
observes,  he  would  not  have  gone  and  told  them  “ that  it  was  Jesus  which 
had  made  him  whole”  but  rather  that  it  was  Jesus  who  had  bidden  him 
to  carry  his  bed. 

His  word,  however,  profited  nothing.  The  Jews  were  only  pro- 
voked the  more ; for  so  is  it  ever  with  the  revelation  of  the  divine : 
what  it  does  not  draw  to  itself  it  drives  from  itself ; what  it  does  not 
win  to  obedience  it  arrays  in  active  hostility.  They  are  now  more  bit- 
terly incensed  against  the  Lord,  not  merely  because  he  had  encouraged 
this  man  to  break,  but  had  in  that  act  of  healing  himself  broken,  the 

* Tragedy  in  its  highest  form  continually  occupies  itself  with  this  truth — no- 
wnere,  perhaps,  so  greatly  as  in  the  awful  reproduction  in  the  Choephorse  of  the 
scene  in  which  Clytemnestra  stood  over  the  prostrate  bodies  of  Agamemnon  and 
Cassandra — a reproduction  with  only  the  difference  that  now  it  is  she  and  her  para- 
mour that  are  the  slain,  and  her  own  son  that  stands  over  her. 

f In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  17 : Difficile  est  in  turba  videre  Christum Turba  stre- 

pitum  habet ; visio  ista  secretum  desiderat  ....  In  turba  non  eum  vidit,  in  templo 
vidit. 

\ Calvin:  Nihil  minus  in  animo  habuit  quam  conflare  Christo  invidiam;  nihil 
enim  minus  speravit  quam  ut  tantopere  furerunt  adversus  Christum.  Pius  ergo 
affectus  fuit,  quum  vellet  justo  ac  debito  honore  medicum  suum  prosequi. 

27 


210 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE 


Sabbath,— set  at  nought,  that  is,  their  traditions  about  it.  In  his  reply 
he  seeks  to  lift  up  the  cavillers  to  the  true  standing  point  from  which 
to  contemplate  the  Sabbath,  and  his  relation  to  it  as  the  only-begotten  of 
the  Father.  He  is  no  more  a breaker  of  the  Sabbath  than  God  is,  when 
he  upholds  with  an  energy  that  knows  no  pause  the  work  of  his  creation 
from  hour  to  hour,  and  from  moment  to  moment : “ My  Father  worketh 
hitherto , and  I work”  my  work  is  but  the  reflex  of  his  work.  Abstinence 
from  an  outward  work  belongs  not  to  the  idea  of  a Sabbath,  it  is  only 
more  or  less  the  necessary  condition  of  it  for  being  so  framed  and  con- 
stituted as  ever  to  be  in  danger  of  losing  the  true  collection  and  rest  of 
the  spirit  in  the  multiplicity  of  earthly  toil  and  business.  Man  indeed 
must  cease  from  his  work,  if  a higher  work  is  to  find  place  in  him.  He 
scatters  himself  in  his  work,  and  therefore  must  collect  himself  anew, 
and  have  seasons  for  so  doing.  But  with  him  who  is  one  with  the 
Father  it  is  otherwise.  In  him  the  deepest  rest  is  not  excluded  by  the 
highest  activity ; nay  rather,  in  God,  in  the  Son  as  in  the  Father,  they 
are  one  and  the  same.* 

This  defence  of  what  he  has  done  only  exasperates  his  adversaries 
the  more.  They  have  here  not  a Sabbath-breaker  only,  but  also  a blas- 
phemer, one  who,  as  they  well  perceive,  however  some  later  may  have 
refused  to  see  it,f  is  putting  himself  on  an  equality  with  God,  is  claim- 
ing divine  attributes  for  himself ; and  they  now  not  merely  persecute, 
but  seek  to  slay  him.J  Hereupon  follows  a discourse  than  which  there 
is  no  weightier  in  Holy  Scripture,  for  the  fast  fixing  of  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  relations  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Other  passages  may 

* Thus  Augustine  on  the  eternal  Sabbath-keeping  of  the  faithful  ( Ep . 55,  c.  9): 
Inest  autem  in  illd  requie  non  desidiosa  segnitia,  sed  quaedam  ineffabilis  tranquillitas 
actionis  otiosae.  Sic  enim  ab  hujus  vitae  operibus  in  fine  requiescitur,  ut  in  alterius 
vitae  actione  gaudeatur. 

f Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  17) : Ecce  intelligunt  Judaei,  quod  non  intelligunt 
Ariani. 

f The  words  nal  cC^rovv  avrov  u-KOKreZvai  (ver.  16),  are  probably  transferred  from 
this  ver.  18,  where  they  are  in  their  fit  place : but  there  they  anticipate  the  later  despite 
of  the  Jews,  and  are  omitted  by  many  important  authorities.— It  is  an  interesting 
question  whether  the  “ one  work”  which  our  Lord  says  that  he  had  done,  and  they 
all  marvelled  (John  vii.  21),  or,  all  were  disturbed  {Oavyu&re,  as  Euthymius  says 
rightly  here,  = 6ogvf3elade,  ragaTreade),  be  an  allusion  to  the  healing  of  this  impotent 
man.  as  it  is  evidently  to  a Sabbath-day  cure.  Most  interpreters  answer  in  the  affir- 
mative without  any  doubt.  Yet  it  certainly  seems  unlikely  that  the  Jews  should 
again  have  brought  up  the  old  accusation  concerning  a work  of  healing  wrought  on 
a prior  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  ver.  31  shows  that  he  had  wrought  many  miracles 
there.  Tt  is  then,  I think,  most  likely  that  not  this  miracle,  but  some  new  Sabbath 
cure  not  recorded,  but  only  thus  alluded  to,  had  thus  anew  awakened  their  contra 
diction  and  enmity. 


IMPOTENT  MAN  AT  BETHESDA. 


211 


be  as  important  in  regard  of  the  Arian,  other  again  in  regard  of  the  Sa* * * § 
bellian,  declension  from  the  truth ; but  this  upon  both  sides  plants  the 
pillars  of  the  faith ; yet  it  would  lead  too  far  from  the  purpose  of  this 
volume  to  enter  on  it  here. 

The  subject,  however,  would  not  be  complete  without  some  further  re- 
ference to  the  types  and  prophetic  symbols  which  many  have  traced  in  this 
history.  It  has  been  needful  indeed  in  part  to  anticipate  this  matter.  We 
have  seen  how,  of  old,  men  saw  in  these  beneficent  influences  of  the  pool 
of  Bethesda  a foreshowing  and  foreshadowing  of  future  benefits,  and 
especially,  as  was  natural,  of  the  benefit  of  baptism ; and,  through  famili- 
arity with  a miracle  of  a lower  order,  a helping  of  men’s  faith  to  the 
receiving  the  weightier  mystery  of  a yet  higher  healing  which  was 
to  be  linked  with  water.*  They  were  well  pleased  also  often  to  mag- 
nify the  largeness  and  freedom  of  the  present  benefit,  by  comparing  it 
with  the  narrower  and  more  stinted  blessings  of  the  old  dispensation, 
blessings  which,  they  say,f  altogether  ceased  at  the  death  of  Christ, 
with  the  coming  in,  that  is,  and  establishing  of  the  new.  The  pool  with 
its  one  healed,  and  that  one  at  distant  intervals, — once  a year  Theophy- 
lact  and  most  others  assumed ; although  nothing  of  the  kind  is  said,  and 
the  word  of  the  original  may  mean  oftener  or  seldomer, — was  the  type  of 
the  weaker  and  more  restrained  graces  of  the  Old  Covenant ; when  not 
as  yet  was  there  room  for  all,  nor  a fountain  opened  and  at  all  times  ac- 
cessible for  the  healing  of  the  spiritual  sicknesses  of  the  whole  race  of 
men,  but  only  of  a single  people.  J 

Thus  Chrysostom,  in  a magnificent  Easter  sermon, § whose  allusions 
have  a peculiar  fitness,  the  season  of  Easter  being  that  at  which  the 
great  multitudes  of  neophytes  were  baptized.  He  says : — “ Among  the 
Jews  also  there  was  of  old  a pool  of  water.  Yet  learn  whereunto  it  availed, 
that  thou  mayest  accurately  measure  the  Jewish  poverty  and  our  riches. 
There  went  down,  it  is  said,  an  angel  and  moved  the  w&-~rs,  and  who 
first  descended  into  them  after  the  moving,  obtained  a cure.  The  Lord 
of  angels  went  down  into  the  stream  of  Jordan,  and  sanctifying  the  na- 
ture of  water,  healed  the  whole  world.  So  that  there  indeed  he  who 
descended  after  the  first  was  not  healed,  for  to  the  Jews  infirm  and 

* So  especially  Chrysostom  (in  loc.) 

f Tertullian,  Adv.  Jud.,  c.  13. 

\ The  author  of  the  work  attributed  to  Ambrose  (De  Sacram.,  1.  2,  c.  2) : Tunc 
inquam  temporis  in  figura  qui  prior  descendisset,  solus  curabatur.  Quanto  major  est 
gratia  Ecclesite,  in  qua  omnes  salvantur,  quicunque  descendunt ! 

§ Opera,  v.  3,  p.  756,  Bened.  Ed. 


212 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  IMPOTENT  MAN. 


carnal  this  grace  was  given ; but  here  after  the  first  a second  descends, 
after  the  second  a third  and  a fourth ; and  were  it  a thousand,  didst  thou 
cast  the  whole  world  into  these  spiritual  fountains,  the  grace  were  not 
worn  out,  the  gift  expended,  the  fountains  defiled,  the  liberality  exhaust- 
ed.” And  Augustine,  ever  on  the  watch  to  bring  out  his  great  truth 
that  the  Law  was  for  the  revealing  of  sin,  and  could  not  effect  its 
removal,  for  the  making  men  to  know  their  sickness,  not  for  the  healing 
that  sickness,  for  the  dragging  them  out  of  the  lurking-places  of  an 
imagined  righteousness,  not  for  the  providing  them  of  itself  with  any 
surer  refuge,  finds  a type,  or  at  least  an  apt  illustration  of  this,  in  those 
five  porches,  which  showed  their  sick,  but  could  not  cure  them,  in  which 
they  “ lay  a great  multitude  of  impotent  folk,  of  blind,  halt,  and  withered .” 
It  needed  that  the  waters  should  be  stirred,  before  any  power  went  forth 
for  their  cure.  This  motion  of  the  pool  was  the  perturbation  of  the 
Jewish  people  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Then  powers 
were  stirring  for  their  healing,  and  he  who  “ went  downf  he  who  hum- 
bly believed  in  his  Incarnation,  in  his  descent  as  a man  amongst  us,  who 
was  not  offended  at  his  lowly  estate,  he  was  healed  of  whatsoever  disease 
he  had.*  Such  are  the  most  important  uses  in  this  kind  that  have  been 
made  of  this  history. 

* Enarr.  lma  in  Ps.  lxx.  15 : Merito  lex  per  Moysen  data  est,  gratia  et  veritas  per 
Jesum  Christum  facta  est.  Moyses  quinque  libros  scripsit ; sed  in  quinque  porticibus 
piscinam  cingentibus  languidi  jacebant,  sed  curari  non  poterant . . . Illis  enim  quinque 
porticibus,  in  figure  quinque  librorum,  prodebantur  potius  quam  sanabantur  segroti 
. . . Venit  Dominus,  turbata  est  aqua,  et  crucifixus  est,  descendat  ut  sanetur  aegrotus. 
Quid  est,  descendat  ? Humiliet  se.  Ergo  quicumque  amatis  litteram  sine  gratia,  in 
porticibus  remanebitis,  aegri  eritis ; jacentes,  non  convalescentes:  de  littera  enim  prae- 
sumitis.  Of.  Enarr.  in  Ps.  lxxxiii.  7 : Qui  non  sanabatur  Lege,  id  est  porticibus, 
sanatur  gratis,  per  passionis  iidem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  Cf.  Serm.  125:  Ad 
hoc  data  est  Lex,  quae  proderet  aegrotos,  non  quae  toUeret.  Ideo  ergo  aegroti  illi  qui 
in  domibus  suis^  secretius  aegrotare  possent,  si  illae  quinque  porticus  non  essent,  pro- 
debantur oculi'  Vinium  in  illis  porticibus,  sed  a porticibus  non  sanabantur. . . .Inten- 
dite  ergo.  Erant  illae  porticus  legem  significantes,  portantes  aegrotos,  non  sanantes, 
prodentes,  non  curantes.  Cf.  In  Ev.  Joh Tract.  17. 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING  OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


Matt.  xiv.  15 — 21 ; Mark  vi.  35 — 44 ; Luke  ix.  12 — 11 ; John  vi.  5 — 14. 

[n  St.  Matthew  the  Lord’s  retiring  to  the  desert  place  where  this  miracle 
was  performed,  connects  itself  directly  with  the  murder  of  John  the 
Baptist,  (ver.  13.)  He,  therefore,  retired,  his  hour  not  being  yet  come. 
St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  put  also  this  history  in  connection  with  the  ac- 
count of  the  Baptist’s  death,  though  they  do  not  give  that  as  the  motive 
of  the  Lord’s  withdrawal.  St.  Mark,  indeed,  mentions  another  reason 
which  in  part  moved  him  to  this,  namely,  that  the  disciples,  the  apostles 
especially,  who  were  just  returned  from  their  mission,  might  have  time 
at  once  for  bodily  and  spiritual  refection  and  refreshment,  might  not  be 
always  in  a crowd,  always  ministering  to  others,  never  to  themselves, 
(vi.  31.)  But  thither,  into  the  wilderness,  the  multitude  followed  him, 
proceeding,  not  necessarily  “ afoot”  (Mark  vi.  33,)  but  “ by  land,”  as 
contradistinguished  from  him  who  went  by  sea : and  this  with  such  ex- 
pedition, that  although  their  way  was  much  further  than  his,  they  “ out- 
ivent ” him,  anticipated  his  coming,  so  that  when  he  “ went  forth,”*  not, 
that  is,  from  the  ship,  but  from  his  solitude,  and  for  the  purpose  of  gra- 
ciously receiving  those  who  thus  came,  he  found  a great  multitude 
waiting  for  him.  Though  this  their  presence  was,  in  fact,  an  entire 
defeating  of  the  very  purpose  for  which  he  had  withdrawn  himself 
thither,  yet  not  the  less  “ he  received  them,  and  spake  unto  them  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  healed  them  that  had  need  of  healing .”  (Luke  ix. 
11.)  St.  John’s  apparently  casual  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  Passover 
was  at  hand,  (vi.  4,)  is  not  so  much  with  the  intention  of  giving  a point 
in  the  chronology  of  the  Lord’s  ministry,  as  to  explain  whence  these 

* ’Etjelddv,  (Matthew,  Mark,)  = de^agevog  avrovg , (Luke.) 


214 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING 


great  multitudes  came,  that  streamed  to  Jesus:  they  were  journeying 
towards  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast. 

There  is  this  difference  in  the  manner  in  which  the  miracle  is  intro- 
duced by  the  three  Evangelists,  and  by  St.  John,  that  they  make  the 
first  question  concerning  the  manner  of  providing  for  the  needs  of  the 
assembled  crowds  to  come  from  the  disciples,  in  the  shape  of  a proposal 
that  the  Lord,  now  that  the  day  was  beginning  to  decline,  should  dismiss 
them,  thus  giving  them  opportunity  to  purchase  provisions  in  the  neigh- 
boring villages;  while  in  St.  John  it  is  the  Lord  himself  who  first  sug- 
gests the  difficulty,  saying  to  Philip,  “ Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that 
these  may  eat?"  (vi.  5.)  This  difference,  however,  is  capable  of  an 
easy  explanation.  It  may  well  have  been  that  our  Lord  spake  thus 
unto  Philip  at  a somewhat  earlier  period  in  the  afternoon  ; and  then  left 
the  difficulty  and  perplexity  to  work  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles,  pre- 
paring them  in  this  way  for  the  coming  wonder  which  he  was  about  to 
work ; bringing  them,  as  was  so  often  his  manner,  to  see  that  there  was 
no  help  in  the  common  course  of  things, — and  when  they  had  acknow- 
ledged this,  then,  and  not  before,  stepping  in  with  his  higher  aid.* 

The  Lord  put  this  question  to  Philip,  not  as  needing  any  counsel, 
not  as  being  himself  in  any  real  embarrassment,  “ for  he  himself  hnew 
what  he  would  do,"  but  “ tempting  him,”  as  Wiclif’s  translation  has  it, 
— which  word  if  we  admit,  we  must  yet  understand  in  its  milder  sense, 
as  indeed  our  later  translators  have  done,  who  have  given  it,  “ to  prove 
him"\  (Gen.  xxii.  1.)  It  was  to  prove  him,  what  manner  of  trust  he 
had  in  him  whom  he  had  himself  already  acknowledged  the  Messiah, — 
“ him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  Law  and  the  prophets  did  write,”  (John  i. 
45,) — and  whether,  remembering  the  great  things  which  Moses  had 
done,  when  he  gave  the  people  bread  from  heaven  in  the  wilderness,  and 
the  notable  miracle  which  Elisha,  though  on  a smaller  scale  than  that 
which  now  was  needed,  had  performed,  (2  Kin.  iv.  43,  44,)  he  could  so 
lift  up  his  thoughts  as  to  believe  that  he  whom  he  had  recognized  as  the 
Christ,  greater  therefore  than  Moses  or  the  prophets,  would  be  sufficient 
to  the  present  need.  Cyril  sees  a reason  why  Philip,  rather  than  any 
other  apostle,  should  have  been  selected  to  have  this  question  put  to  him, 
namely  that  he  had  the  greatest  need  of  the  teaching  contained  in  it ; 
and  refers  to  his  later  words,  “ Lord,  show  us  the  Father,”  (John  xiv. 


* For  ^he  reconciliation  of  any  apparent  contradiction,  see  Augustine,  De  Cons. 
Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  46. 

| Hstpafov  avTov.  Cf.  Augustine,  De  Serm.  Dom.  in  Mon .,  1.  2,  c.  9 : Illud  factum 
est,  ut  ipse  sibi  uotus  fieret  qui  tentabatur,  suamque  desperationem  condemnaret, 
saturatis  turbis  de  pane  Domini,  qui  eas  non  habere  quod  ederent  existimaverat. 


OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


215 


8,)  in  proof  of  the  tardiness  of  his  spiritual  apprehension,  * But  whether 
this  was  so  or  not,  Philip  does  not  on  the  present  occasion  abide  the 
proof.  . Long  as  he  has  been  with  Jesus,  he  has  not  yet  seen  the  Father 
in  the  Son,  (John  xiv.  9,)  he  does  not  yet  know  that  his  Lord  is  even  the 
same  who  openeth  his  hand  and  filleth  all  things  living  with  plenteous- 
ness, who  feedeth  and  nourisheth  all  creatures,  who  has  fed  and  nourished 
them  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  who  therefore  can  feed  these 
few  thousands  that  are  now  waiting  on  his  bounty.  He  has  no  thought 
of  any  other  supplies  save  such  as  natural  means  could  procure,  and  at 
once  names  a sum,  “ two  hundred  pence”  as  but  barely  sufficient,  which 
yet  he  would  probably  imply  was  a sum  much  larger  than  any  which 
they  had  in  their  common  purse  at  the  moment. f 

Having  drawn  this  confession  of  inability  to  meet  the  present  need 
from  the  lips  of  Philip,  he  left  it  to  work ; — till,  somewhat  later  in  the 
day,  “ when  it  was  evening , his  disciples  came  to  him ” with  the  proposal, 
the  only  one  which  suggested  itself  to  them,  that  he  should  dismiss  the 
crowds,  and  let  them  seek  for  the  refreshment  which  they  required  in 
the  neighboring  hamlets  and  villages.  But  the  Lord  will  now  bring 
them  yet  nearer  to  the  end  which  he  has  in  view,  and  replies,  “ They 
need  not  depart;  give  ye  them  to  eat:”  and  when  they  repeat  with  one 
mouth  what  Philip  had  before  affirmed,  asking  if  they  shall  spend  two 
hundred  pence,  (for  them  an  impossible  thing,)  on  the  food  required, 
(Mark  vi.  37,)  he  bids  them  go  and  see  what  supplies  they  have  actually 
at  command.  With  their  question  we  may  compare  Num.  xi.  22, 
“ Shall  the  flocks  and  the  herds  be  slain  for  them  to  suffice  them for 
in  either  question  there  is  a mitigated  infidelity,  a doubt  whether  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  can  really  reach  to  supply  the  present  need,  though 
his  word,  here  indeed  only  impliedly,  has  undertaken  it.  In  the  interval 
between  their  going  and  their  return  to  him,  they  purchase,  or  rather 
secure  for  purchase,  the  little  stock  that  is  in  possession  of  a single  lad 
among  the  multitude  ; and  thus  is  explained  that  in  the  three  first  Evan- 
gelists, the  disciples  speak  of  the  five  loaves  and  two  fishes J as  theirs, 

* Cramer’s  Catena  (in  loc.) 

f The  specifying  of  this  sura  as  inadequate  to  the  present  need  is  peculiar  to  St. 
Mark  and  St.  John : another  of  the  many  evidences  against  the  view  that  would  make 
St.  Mark’s  Gospel  nothing  but  an  epitome  now  of  St.  Matthew’s,  now  of  St.  Luke’s. 
It  is  clear  he  had  resources  quite  independent  of  theirs. 

| Instead  of  IxOvig  St.  John  has  oipdpia,  both  here  and  xxi.  9.  This  word,  the 
diminutive  of  mpov,  (from  h po,  to  prepare  by  fire,)  properly  means  any  tt po<j<pdyiov  or 
Dulmentum,  any  thing,  as  flesh,  salt,  olives,  butter,  cfec.,  which  should  be  eaten  as  a 
relish  with  bread;  But  by  degrees,  as  Plutarch  ( Symp .,  1.  4,  c.  4)  remarks,  the  terms 
otpov  and  pipdpiov  came  in  men’s  language  to  be  restricted  with  a narrower  use  to  fish 


216 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING 


that  is,  standing  at  their  command,  in  St.  John  as  rather  belonging  to 
the  lad  himself.* 

With  this  slender  stock  of  homeliest  fare,f  the  Lord  undertakes  to 
satisfy  all  that  multitude,  (Chrysostom  quotes  aptly  here  Ps.  lxxviii.  26; 
“ Shall  God  prepare  a table  in  the  wilderness  ?”)  and  bids  his  disciples 
to  make  them  all  recline  on  the  “green  grass,”  at  that  season  of  the 
year  a delightful  resting-place,];  and  which  both  by  St.  Mark  and  St. 
John  is  noted  to  have  abounded  in  the  place.  St.  Mark  adds  another 
graphic  touch,  how  they  sat  down  in  companies,  which  consisted  some 
of  fifty,  some  of  a hundred,  and  how  these  separate  companies  showed 
in  their  symmetrical  arrangement  like  so  many  garden  plots.§  In  this 
subordinate  circumstance  we  behold  his  wisdom,  who  is  the  lord  and 
lover  of  order.  Thus,  all  disorder,  all  noise  and  confusion  were  avoided ; 
there  was  no  danger  that  the  weaker,  the  women  and  the  children,  should 
be  passed  over,  while  the  stronger  and  ruder  unduly  put  themselves  for- 
ward ; thus  the  apostles  were  able  to  pass  easily  up  and  down  among 
the  multitude,  and  to  minister  in  orderly  succession  to  the  necessities  of 
every  part. 

The  taking  of  The  bread  in  hand  would  seem  to  have  been  a formal 
act  going  before  the  blessing  or  giving  of  thanks  for  it.  ||  This  eucharistic 

alone,  generally  salt  fish,  that  being  the  favorite  or  most  usual  accompaniment  of 
bread.  (See  Suicer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.  oipapiov,  The  Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Antt.,  s.  v 
Opsonium,  and  Becker’s  Charikles,  v.  1 , p.  436.) 

* Grotius:  Apud  alios  Evangelistas  dicuntur  habere  id  quod  in  promptu  erat,  ut 
emi  posset. 

f The  loaves  are  “ barley  loaves”  the  food  even  then,  for  the  most  part,  of  beasts 
and  not  of  men,  (vile  hordeum;  cf.  2 Kin.  vii.  1.)  Thus  in  the  Talmud  one  says, 
“ There  is  a fine  crop  of  barley,”  and  another  answers,  “ Tell  this  to  the  horses  and 
asses.”  It  was  one  of  the  indignities  to  which  a Roman  soldier  who  had  quitted  his 
ranks  was  submitted,  that  he  was  fed  on  barley  instead  of  wheaten  bread.  (Lrv.,  1. 
2*7,  c.  13 ; Sueton.,  August. , 24.  See  Wetstein  on  John  vi.  9.) 

£ prostrati  gramine  molli, 

Prsesertim  cum  tempestas  arridet,  et  anni 
Tempora  conspergunt  viridantes  floribus  herbas. 

§ II paacal,  irpaoial  = areolatim.  The  7r gacial  are  the  square  garden  plots,  in 
which  herbs  are  grown.  Theophylact:  II pamal  yap  leyovrai  t&  ev  roig  /djirotg 
6td(j)opa  Kofipara,  ev  olg  ^vrevovrai  Siu<popa  TzoTCkdiag  "Kdxava . Some  derive  it  from 
7t epag,  these  patches  being  commonly  on  the  edges  of  the  vineyard  or  garden ; others 
from  7 rpdaov,  porrum,  the  onion  being  largely  grown  in  them.  Our  English  “ in 
ranks”  does  not  reproduce  the  picture  to  the  eye,  giving  rather  the  notion  of  con- 
tinuous lines.  Wiclif’s  was  better,  “by  parties.”  Perhaps  “ingroups,”  would  be 
is  near  as  we  could  get  to  it  in  English. 

I In  Matthew  and  Mark,  evXoyijae,— in  Luke,  evX'oyyaev  avrovg,  sc.  rovg  dprovg,— in 


OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


211 


act  Jesus  accomplished  as  the  head  of  the  household,  and  according  to 
that  beautiful  saying  of  the  Talmud,  “He  that  enjoys  aught  without 
thanksgiving,  is  as  though  he  robbed  God.”  The  words  themselves  are 
not  given ; they  were  probably  those  of  the  ordinary  grace  before  meat 
in  use  in  Israel.  Having  blessed  the  food,  he  delivered  it  to  the  apos- 
tles, who  in  their  turn  distributed  to  the  different  tables,  if  such  they 
might  be  called, — the  marvellous  multiplication  taking  place,  as  many 
say,  first  in  the  hands  of  the  Saviour  himself,  next  in  those  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  lastly  in  the  hands  of  the  eaters ; yet  at  all  events  so  that  “ they 
did  all  eat  and  were  filled.”*  Of  that  multitude  we  may  fitly  say,  that 
in  them  the  promise  of  the  Saviour,  “ Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  his  righteousness,  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you,” 
found  a practical  fulfilment.  They  had  come  taking  no  thought,  for 
three  days  at  least,  of  what  they  should  eat  or  what  they  should  drink, 
only  anxious  to  hear  the  word  of  life,  only  seeking  the  kingdom  of  Hea- 
ven ; and  now  the  meaner  things,  according  to  the  word  of  the  promise, 
were  added  unto  them. 

Here  too,  even  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  water  changed  into 
wine,  when  we  seek  to  realize  to  ourselves  the  manner  of  the  miracle,  it 
evermore  eludes  our  grasp.  We  seek  in  vain  to  follow  it  with  our  ima- 
ginations. For,  indeed,  how  is  it  possible  to  realize  to  ourselves,  to 
bring  within  forms  of  understanding,  any  act  of  creation,  any  becoming  ? 
how  is  it  possible  in  our  thoughts  to  bridge  over  the  gulf  between  not- 
being  and  being,  which  yet  is  bridged  over  in  every  creative  act?  And 
this  being  impossible,  there  is  no  force  in  the  objection  which  one  has 
made  against  the  historical  truth  of  this  narrative,  namely,  that  “ there 
is  no  attempt  by  closer  description  to  make  clear  in  its  details  the  man- 
ner and  process  in  which  this  wonderful  bread  was  formed.”  But  this 
is  the  wisdom  of  the  sacred  narrator,  to  leave  the  description  of  the  inde- 
scribable unattempted.f  His  appeal  is  to  the  same  faith  which  believes 

John,  teal  evxapicrTTioag,  and  this  is  the  word  which  on  the  occasion  of  the  second  mira- 
cle of  the  same  kind  both  Matthew  (xv.  36)  and  Mark  (viii.  6)  use.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  terms  are  synonymous : in  further  proof,  compare  Matt.  xxvi.  27, 
with  the  parallels,  1 Cor.  x.  16 ; xi.  24.  See  Grotius  on  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  The  view 
of  Origen,  that  our  Lord  wrought  the  wonder  7tg}  loy<p  kol  rfj  ev?>oyta,  that  this  mo- 
ment of  taking  the  loaves  into  his  hand  and  blessing,  was  the  wonder-crisis,  is  sus- 
tained by  the  fact  that  all  four  Evangelists  bring  out  this  circumstance  of  the  blessing, 
and  most  of  all  by  St.  Luke’s  words,  ev'hoyrjaev  avrovg. 

* Xopra^oyai  was  applied  originally,  as  its  derivation  from  x°PT°g  shows,  to  the 
foddering  of  cattle.  The  use  of  it  as  applied  to  men  belongs  chiefly  to  the  later 
comic  writers, — see  the  examples  adduced  by  Athenaeus,  ( Deipnos .,  1.  3,  § 66,)  where 
3ne  is  justifying  himself  for  using  x°PTa^VvaL  as  = KopeoOrivai. 

\ Thus  Hilary  ( De  Trin.,  3,  §6):  Fallunt  momenta  visum,  dum  plenam  frag- 


218 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING- 


“ that  the  worlds  were  formed  by  the  Word  of  God , so  that  things  which 
are  seen,  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear.”  (Heb.  xi.  3.) 

An  analogy  has  been  found  to  this  miracle,  and  as  it  were  a help  to 
the  understanding  of  it,  in  .that  which  God  does  yearly  in  the  corn-field, 
where  a simple  grain  of  corn  cast  into  the  earth  multiplies  itself,  and  in 
the  end  unfolds  in  numerous  ears ; — and  out  of  this  thought  many  beau- 
tiful remarks  have  been  made; — as  this,  that  while  God’s  every-day 
miracles  had  grown  cheap  in  men’s  sight  by  continual  repetition,  he 
had  therefore  reserved  something,  not  more  wonderful,  but  more  out  of 
use,  tq  awaken  men’s  minds  to  a new  admiration ; — or,  that  as  in  the 
case  of  the  water  made  wine,  he  did  but  compress  into  a single  moment 
all  those  processes  which  in  ordinary  circumstances  he,  the  same  Lord  of 
nature,  caused  more  slowly  to  follow  one  upon  another.*  But  true  as 
in  its  measure  is  this  last  observation,  yet  it  cannot  be  left  out  of  sight 
that  the  analogy  does  not  reach  through  and  through.  For  that  other 
work  in  the  field  is  the  unfolding  of  the  seed  according  to  the.  law  of  its 
own  being : thus,  had  the  Lord  taken  a few  grains  of  corn  and  cast' 
them  into  the  ground,  and,  in  a moment  after,  a large  harvest  had  sprung 
up,  this  might  have  been  termed  such  a divinely-hastened  process. f 


mentis  manum  sequeris,  alteram  sine  damno  portionis  suae  contueris  ....  Non  sensus 
non  visus  profectum  tam  inconspicabilis  operationis  assequitur.  Est,  quod  non  erat ; 
videtur  quod  non  intelligitur ; solum  superest  ut  Deus  omnia  posse  credatur.  Cf. 
Ambrose,  Exp.  in  Luc.,  1.  6,  c.  85. 

* Augustine  {Serm.  180,  1):  Grande  miraculum:  sed  non  multum  mirabimur 
factum,  si  adtendamus  facientem.  Ille  multiplicavit  in  manibus  frangentium  quinque 
panes,  qui  in  terra  germinantia  multiplicat  semina,  ut  grana  pauca  mittantur,  et  horrea 
repleantur  Sed  quia  illud  omni  anno  facit,  nemo  miratur.  Admirationem  tollit  non 
facti  vilitas  sed  assiduitas.  And  again  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  24) : Quia  enim  .... 
miracula  ejus,  quibus  totum  mundum  regit,  universamque  creaturur*  administrat  assi- 
duitate  viluerunt,  ita  ut  pene  nemo  dignetur  attendere  opera  Dei  mira  et  stupenda  in 
quolibet  seminis  grano ; secundum  ipsam  suam  misericordiam  servavit  sibi  qusedam 
qu£e  faceret  opportuno  tempore  prseter  usitatum  cursum  ordinemque  naturae,  ut  non 
majora  sed  insolita  videndo  stuperent,  quibus  quotidiana  viluerant ....  Illud  mirantur 
homines,  non  quia  majus  est,  sed  quia  rarum  est.  Quis  enim  et  nunc  pascit  universum 
mundum,  nisi  ille  qui  de  paucis  granis  segetes  creat  ? Fecit  ergo  quomodo  Deus. 
Unde  enim  multiplicat  de  paucis  granis  segetes,  inde  in  manibus  suis  multiplicavit 
quinque  panes.  Potestas  enim  erat  in  manibus  Christi.  Panes  autem  ille  quinque 
quasi  semina  erant,  non  quidem  terrae  mandata,  sed  ab  eo  qui  terrain  fecit,  multipli- 
cata.  And  again,  Serm.  126,  c.  3:  Quotidiana  miracula  Dei  non  facilitate  sed  assi- 

duitate  viluerant Mirati  sunt  homines,  Dominum  Deum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum 

de  quinque  panibus  saginasse  tot  millia,  et  non  mirantur  per  pauca  grana  impleri 
eegetibus  terras  ....  Quia  tibi  ista  viluerant,  venit  ipse  ad  facienda  insolita,  ut  et  in 
ipsis  solitis  agnosceres  Artificem  tuum.  Cf.  Serm.  247. 

•j-  In  the  apocryphal  Evangelium  S.  Thomce  such  a miracle  is  ascribed  to  the  child 


OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


219 


But  with  bread  it  is  different,  since  before  that  is  made  there  must  be 
new  interpositions  of  man’s  art,  and  those  of  such  a nature  as  that  by 
them  the  very  life,  which  hitherto  unfolded  itself,  must  be  crushed 
and  destroyed.  A grain  of  wheat  could  never  by  itself,  and  according 
to  the  laws  of  its  natural  development,  issue  in  a loaf  of  bread.  And, 
moreover,  the  Lord  does  not  start  from  the  simple  germ,  from  the  life- 
ful rudiments,  in  which  all  the  seeds  of  a future  life  might  be  supposed 
to  be  wrapped  up,  and  by  him  rapidly  developed,  but  with  the  latest  arti- 
ficial result : one  can  conceive  how  the  oak  is  unfolded  in  the  acorn,  but 
not  how  it  could  be  said  to  be  wrapped  up  in  the  piece  of  timber  hewn 
and  shaped  from  itself.  This  analogy  then  even  as  such  is  not  satisfy- 
ing : and,  foregoing  any  helps  of  this  kind,*  we  must  simply  behold  in 
this  multiplying  of  the  bread  an  act  of  divine  omnipotence]-  on  his  part 
who  was  the  Word  of  God, — not  indeed  now,  as  at  the  first,  of  absolute 
creation  out  of  nothing,  since  there  was  a substratum  to  work  on  in  the 
original  loaves  and  fishes,  but  an  act  of  creative  accretion;  the  bread 
did  grow  under  his  hands,  so  that  from  that  little  stock  all  the  multitude 
were  abundantly  supplied : “ they  did  all  eat  and  were  filled .” 

Thus  He,  all  whose  works  were  “signs,”  and  had  a tongue  by 
which  they  spoke  to  the  world,  did  in  this  miracle  proclaim  himself  the 
true  bread  of  the  world,  that  should  assuage  the  hunger  of  men,  the 

Jesus,  not  indeed  as  regards  the  swiftness,  but  the  largeness  of  the  return.  He  goes 
out  at  sowing  time  with  Joseph  in  the  field,  and  sows  there  a single  grain  of  wheat : 
from  this  he  ha3  the  return  of  a hundred  cors,  which  he  distributes  to  the  poor  of 
the  place.  (Thilo’s  Cod.  Apocryphus,  p.  302.) 

* The  attempt  to  find  in  the  natural  world  analogies,  nearer  or  more  remote,  for 
the  miracles,  may  spring  from  two,  and  those  very  opposite,  sources.  It  may  be  that 
men  are  endeavoring  herein  to  realize  to  themselves,  so  far  as  this  is  allowed  them, 
the  course  of  the  miracle,  and  by  the  help  of  workings  not  wholly  dissimilar,  to  bring 
it  vividly  before  the  eye  of  their  mind, — delighted  in  thus  finding  traces  of  one  and 
the  same  God  in  the  lower  world  and  the  higher,  and  in  marking  how  the  natural 
and  supernatural  are  concentric  circles,  though  one  wider  than  and  containing  the 
other  ; as  when  in  animal  magnetism  analogies  have  been  found  to  the  healing  pow- 
er which  streamed  forth  from  Christ,  and  this  even  by  some  who  have  kept  this  ob- 
scure and  perilous  power  of  our  lower  nature  altogether  distinct  from  that  pure 
element  of  light  and  life,  which  went  forth  and  was  diffused  from  him.  Or  these 
analogies  may  be  sought  out  and  snatched  at  in  a very  different  spirit,  in  the  hope 
of  escaping  from  the  miraculous  in  the  miracle  altogether ; because  in  them  there 
seems  an  approximation  to  such  an  escape ; as  when  some  have  eagerly  snatched 
at  these  same  facts  of  animal  magnetism,  not  as  lower  and  remote  analogies,  but 
as  identical,  or  well-nigh  identical  facts,  with  the  miraculous  healings  of  orn 
Lord. 

f Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  9) : Omnipotentia  Domini  quasi  fons  panis  eret ; 
and  again  (Enarr.  2a  in  Ps.  cx.  10):  Fontes  panis  erant  in  manibus  Domini. 


220 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING 


inexhausted  and  inexhaustible  source  of  all  life,  in  whom  there  should 
be  enough  and  to  spare  for  all  the  spiritual  needs  of  all  hungering  souls 
in  all  ages.*  For,  in  Augustine’s  language,  once  already  quoted,  “ He 
was  the  Word  of  God;  and  all  the  acts  of  the  Word  are  themselves 
words  for  us ; they  are  not  as  pictures,  merely  to  look  at  and  admire, 
but  as  letters  which  we  must  seek  to  read  and  understand.”! 

When  all  had  eaten  and  were  satisfied,  the  Lord  bade  the  disciples 
to  gather  up  the  fragments  which  remained  of  the  loaves,  that  nothing 
might  be  lost;  the  existence  of  these  was  itself  a witness  that  there 
was  enough  and  more  than  enough  for  all.  (2  Kin.  iv.  43,  44;  Ruth  ii. 
14.)  St.  Mark  makes  mention  that  it  was  so  done  also  with  the  fishes. 
For  thus  with  the  Lord  of  nature,  as  with  nature  herself,  the  most  pro- 
digal bounty  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  nicest  and  truest  economy,  and 
he  who  had  but  now  shown  himself  God,  again  submits  himself  to  the 
laws  and  proprieties  of  his  earthly  condition,  so  that  as  in  the  miracle 
itself  his  power,  in  this  command  his  humility,  shines  eminently  forth. 
At  this  bidding  they  collected  fragments,  which  immensely  exceeded  in 
bulk  and  quantity  the  amount  of  provision  with  which  they  began. 
They  filled  twelve  baskets  with  these.  An  apt  symbol  this  of  that  love 
which  exhausts  not  itself  by  loving,  but  after  all  its  outgoings  upon 
others,  abides  itself  far  richer  than  it  would  have  done  but  for  these,  of 
the  multiplying  which  there  ever  is  in  a true  dispensing.  (Compare 
2 Kin.  iv.  1 — 7,  and  Prov.  xi.  24 : “ There  is  that  scattereth,  and  yet 
increaseth.”) 

St.  John, — who  is  ever  careful  to  note  whatsoever  hastened  and  drew 
on  the  final  catastrophe,  whatsoever  actively  stirred  up  the  malignity  of 
Christ’s  enemies,  whereto  nothing  more  contributed  than  the  expression 
of  the  people’s  favor, — he  alone  tells  us  of  the  effect  which  this  miracle 
had  upon  the  assembled  multitude,  how  they  recognized  Jesus  as  the 
expected  prophet,  as  him  of  whom  Moses  had  foretold,  the  prophet  like 
unto  himself,  (Deut.  xviii.  15,)  whom  God  would  raise  up  for  them  ; and 
that,  ever  eager  for  new  things,  they  would  fain  have  set  him  at  their 
head,  the  king  and  liberator  of  the  nation.  It  was  not  merely  the 
power  which  he  here  displayed  that  moved  them  so  greatly,  but  it  was 

* Thus  Prudentius : — 

Tu  cibus  panisque  noster,  tu  perennis  suavitas ; 

Nescit  esurire  in  aevum  qui  tuara  sumit  dapem, 

Nec  lacunam  ventris  implet,  sed  fovet  vitalia. 

f Verbuin  Dei  est  Christus,  qui  non  solum  sonis  sed  etiam  factis  loquitur  homi- 
nibus.  And  In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract . 24 : Interrogemus  ipsa  miracula  quid  nobis  loquaatur 
de  Christo  ; habent  enim,  si  intelligantur,linguam  suam. 


OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


221 


because  a miracle  of  this  very  kind  was  one  looked  for  from  the  Mes- 
siah. He  was  to  repeat,  so  to  say,  the  miracles  of  Moses.  As  he,  the 
first  redeemer,  had  given  bread  of  wonder  to  the  people  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  should  the  later  Kedeemer  do  the  same.*  Thus  too,  when 
the  first  enthusiasm  which  this  miracle  had  caused  was  over,  the  Jews 
compare  it  with  that  which  Moses  had  done,  not  any  longer  to  find  here 
a proof  that  one  with  like  or  greater  powers,  was  among  them,  but  in- 
vidiously to  depress  the  present  by  comparison  with  the  past  miracle ; 
and  by  the  inferiority  which  they  found  in  this,  to  prove  that  Jesus  was 
not  that  Messiah  who  had  a right  to  rebuke  and  command  them.  “ What 
sign  showest  thou,  that  we  may  see  and  believe  thee  % What  dost  thou 
work  % Our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert,  as  it  is  written,  He 
gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat,”  (John  vi.  30,  31 ;)  while  thine, 
they  would  say,  is  but  this  common  bread  of  earth,  with  which  thou 
hast  once  nourished  a few  thousands,  j- 

But  although  there  is  a resemblance  between  that  miracle  and  this, 
yet  the  resemblance  is  more  striking  between  this  and  another  in  the 
Old  Testament, — that  which  Elisha  wrought,  when  with  the  twenty 
loaves  of  barley  he  satisfied  a hundred  men.  (2  Kin.  iv.  42 — 44.)  All 
the  rudiments  of  this  miracle  there  appear  ;J  the  two  substances,  one 
artificial,  one  natural,  from  which  the  many  persons  are  fed,  as  here 
bread  and  fish,  so  there  bread  and  fresh  ears  of  corn.  As  here  the  dis- 
ciples are  incredulous,  so  there  the  servitor  asks,  “ Should  I set  this  be- 
fore a hundred  men as  here  twelve  baskets  of  fragments  remain,  so 
there  “ they  did  eat  and  left  thereof.”  Yet  weje  they  only  the  weaker 

* Schoettgen  ( Hor . Heb.,  in  loc.,  from  the  Midrasch  Coheleth) : Quemadmodum 
Goel  primus,  sic  quoque  erit  postremus.  Goel  primus  descendere  fecit  Man,  q.  d. 
Exod.  xvi.  4,  Et  pluere  faciam  vobis  panem  de  ccelo.  Sic  quoque  Goel  postremus 
descendere  facit  Man,  q.  d.  Ps.  lxxii.  16,  Erit  multitudo  frumenti  super  terram. 

f Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  21) : Non  uno  die,  sed  annis  quadraginta,  nec 
de  inferioribus  materiis  panis  et  piscis,  sed  de  manna  ccelesti,  nec  quinque  circiter 
sed  sexcenta  millia  hominum  protelavit. 

\ Tertullian  notes  this  prefiguration  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  in  those  of  his  ser- 
vants, against  the  Gnostics,  who  would  fain  have  cut  loose  the  New  Testament  from 
the  Old,  and  found  not  merely  distinction  but  direct  opposition  between  the  two 
{Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  21) : Invenies  totum  hunc  ordinem  Christi  circa  ilium  Dei  homi- 
nem,  qui  oblatos  sibi  viginti  hordeaceos  panes  cum  populo  distribui  jussisset,  et 
minister  ejus  proinde  comparata  multitudine  et  pabuli  mediocritate,  respondisset, 
Quid  ergo  hoc  dem  in  conspectu  centum  hominum  ? Da,  inquit,  et  manducabant  .... 
0 Christum  et  in  novis  veterem ! Haec  itaque  quse  viderat,  Petrus,  et  cum  pristinis 
comparat,  et  non  tantum  retro  facta,  sed  et  in  futurum  jam  tunc  prophetantia  recog- 
noverat,  interroganti  Domino,  quisnam  illis  videretur,  cum  pro  omnibus  responderet, 
Tu  es  Christus,  non  potest  non  eum  sensisse  Christum,  nisi  quern  noverat  in  scripturis, 
quem  jam  recensebat  in  factis. 


222 


MIRACULOUS  FEEDING  OF  FIVE  THOUSAND. 


rudiments  of  this  miracle,  and  this  for  reasons  which  more  than  once 
have  been  noted.  Chrysostom  bids  us  observe  this  difference  between 
the  servant  and  the  Lord;  how  the  prophets  having  grace  only  in 
measure,  so  in  measure  they  wrought  their  miracles:  but  the  Son, 
working  with  infinite  power,  and  that  not  lent  him  but  his  own,  did  all 
with  much  superabundance.*  Analogies  to  this  miracle,  but  of  a re- 
moter kind,  are  to  be  found  in  the  multiplying  of  the  widow’s  cruse  of 
oil  and  her  barrel  of  meal  by  Elijah,  (1  Kin.  xvii.  16,)  and  in  that 
other  miracle  of  the  oil,  which,  according  to  the  prophet’s  word,  con- 
tinued to  flow  so  long  as  there  were  vessels  to  contain  it.  (2  Kin.  iv. 
l-7.)f 


* Tertullian  ( Adv . Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  35) : Cum  aliter  utique  Dominus  per  semetipsum 
operetur,  sive  per  Filium  ; aliter  per  Prophetas  famulos  suos,  maxime  documenta 
virtutis  et  potestatis ; qua  ut  clariora  et  validiora,  qua  propria,  distare  a vicariis 
fas  est. 

•j-  I have  promised  at  page  69  an  example  or  two  of  the  rationalist  explanations  of 
the  miracles.  It  were  to  slay  the  slain  to  enter  now-a-days  on  a serious  refutation  of 
them ; new  forms  of  opposition  to  the  truth  have  risen  up,  but  this  has  gone  by ; yet 
as  curiosities  of  interpretation,  they  may  deserve  a passing  notice.  This  then  is  the 
scheme  of  Paulus  for  a natural  explanation  of  the  present  miracle.  He  supposes  that, 
however  many  there  were  of  the  multitude  who  had  nothing  to  eat,  there  were  others 
who  had  stock  and  store  by  them ; which  was  the  more  probable  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, as  we  know  that  the  Jews,  Avhen  travelling  to  any  distance,  were  accustomed  to 
warry  their  provisions  with  them, — and  of  this  multitude  many  were  thus  coming  from 
far  to  the  passover  at  Jerusalem.  These  stores,  although  hitherto  they  had  withheld 
from  the  common  needs,  yet*  now,  put  to  shame  by  the  free  liberality  of  Jesus,  they 
brought  forth  and  distributed,  when  he  had  shown  them  the  example,  and  had  himself 
first  done  this  with  the  small  stock  at  his  command.  Many  difficulties  certainly  seem 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  this, — that  is,  of  the  Evangelists  having  actually  meant  to  relate 
this ; for  Paulus  does  not  say  that  they  made  a mistake,  and  turned  an  ordinary  event 
into  a miracle,  but  that  this  is  what  they  actually  intended  to  record.  It  is,  for  ex- 
ample, plainly  a difficulty  that,  even  supposing  the  people  to  have  followed  “ the 
example  of  laudable  moderation”  which  Jesus  showed  them,  there  should  have  re- 
mained twelve  baskets  of  fragments  from  his  five  loaves.  But  to  this  he  replies  that 
they  indeed  affirm  nothing  of  the  kind.  St.  John,  for  instance,  (vi.  13,)  is  not  asserting 
this,  but  is  accounting  for  the  fact  that  there  should  be  any  residue  at  all,  explaining 
why  the  Lord  should  have  had  need  (ver.  12)  to  bid  gather  up  a remnant,  from  the 
circumstance  that  the  apostles  had  set  before  the  people  so  large  a supply  that  there 
was  more  than  enough  for  all; — and  it  is  exactly,  he  says,  this  which  ver.  13  affirms, 
which  verse  he  thus  explains : “ For  they  got  together  (cvvrjyayov  ovv)  and  had  filled 
( eyefuoav , an  aor.  1,  for  plusq.  perf.)  twelve  baskets  with  fragments,  (i.  e.,  with 
bread  broken  and  prepared  for  eating)  of  the  five  loaves,  which  were  more  than 
enough  (a  hrepLoaevGe)  to  the  eaters — so  that  John  is  speaking,  not  of  remnants 
after  the  meal,  but  of  bread  broken  before  the  meal.  That  this  should  be  called 
presently  after  a crgielov  (ver.  14),  does  but  mean  a sign  of  his  humanity  and  wisdom, 
by  which  he  made  a little  to  go  so  far.  But  this  may  suffice. 


XVII. 


THE  WALKING  ON  THE  SEA. 


Matt.  xiv.  22 — 33  ; Make  vi.  45 — 52 ; Luke  vi.  14 — 21. 

The  three  Evangelists  who  narrate  this  miracle  agree  in  placing  it  in 
immediate  sequence  to  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  on  the  eve- 
ning of  the  same  day.  The  two  first  relate,  that  when  all  was  over 
and  the  multitude  were  fed,  the  Lord  “ straightway  constrained  his  disci- 
ples to  get  into  the  ship”  a phrase  in  itself  not  very  easily  accounted  for, 
and  finding  probably  its  best  explanation  in  the  fact  which  St.  John 
alone  relates,  that  the  multitude  desired  to  take  J esus  and  make  him  a 
king.  (vi.  15.)  It  is  likely  that  the  disciples  had  notice  of  this  purpose 
of  the  multitude, — indeed  they  could  scarcely  have  avoided  knowing 
it ; and  this  was  exactly  to  their  mind,  so  that  they  wrere  most  unwilling 
to  be  parted  from  their  Master  in  this  hour,  as  they  deemed  it,  of  his 
approaching  exaltation.  St.  Jerome  gives  the  reason  more  generally, 
that  they  were  reluctant  to  be  separated  even  for  a season  from  their  be- 
loved Lord.*  While  he  was  dismissing  the  assemblage,  they  were  to 
return,  according  to  St.  Mark,  to  Bethsaida,  which  does  not  contradict 
St.  John,  when  he  says  they  uwent  over  the  sea  towards  Capernaum 
since  this  Bethsaida,  not  the  same  which  St.  Luke  has  made  mention  of 
but  just  before,  and  which  for  distinction  was  called  Bethsaida  Julias, 
but  that  of  which  we  have  already  mention,  (John  i.  44,)  the  city  of 
Philip  and  Andrew  and  Peter,  lay  on  the  other  side  of  the  lake,  and 
in  the  same  direction  as,  and  in  the  neighborhood  of,  Capernaum.  St. 
Matthew,  and  St.  Mark  with  him,  would  seem  to  make  two  evenings  to 
this  day, — one  which  had  already  commenced  ere  the  preparations  for 
the  feeding  of  the  multitude  had  begun,  (ver.  15 ;)  the  other,  now  when 

9 

* So  Chrysostom:  To  “ TjvdyKaaev  ebrev,  ri)v  rroXhrjv  irpooedptav  6eucvi)g  t&v 
ftadrjTdv. 


224 


THE  WALKING-  ON  THE  SEA. 


the  disciples  had  entered  into  the  ship  and  begun  their  voyage,  (ver. 
23.)  And  this  was  an  ordinary  way  of  speaking  among  the  Jews,  the 
first  evening  being  very  much  our  afternoon,  (compare  Luke  ix.  12, 
where  the  “ evening ” of  Matthew  and  Mark  is  described  as  the  day  be- 
ginning to  decline ;)  the  second  evening*  being  the  twilight,  or  from  six 
o’clock  to  twilight ; on  which  the  absolute  darkness  followed.  It  was 
the  first  evening,  or  afternoon,  when  the  preparations  for  feeding  the  five 
thousand  commenced ; the  second,  when  the  disciples  had  taken  ship. 

But  in  the  absence  of  their  Lord  they  were  not  able  to  make  any 
effectual  progress:  “ the  wind  was  contrary ,”  and  the  sea  was  rough: 
their  sails,  of  course,  could  profit  them  nothing.  It  was  now  “ the 
fourth  watch  of  the  night f near  morning  therefore,  and  yet  with  all 
their  efforts  and  the  toil  of  the  entire  night,  they  had  not  accomplished 
more  than  “ five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs,”  scarcely,  that  is,  more 
than  half  of  their  way,  the  lake  being  forty  or  forty-five  furlongs  in 
breadth.  Probably  they  were  ever  finding  themselves  more  unable  to 
proceed,  the  danger  probably  was  ever  heightening — when  suddenly  they 
see  their  Lord  “ walking  on  the  seaf*  and  already  close  to  their  bark. 


* ’Oi pia  devrepa. 

\ Many  have  supposed  that  there  is  a scoff  against  this  miracle  intended  by  Lucian 
( Ver.  Hist.,  1.  2,  c.  4)  in  his  account  of  the  cork-footed  race,  (Qehhonodeg,)  whom  in 
his  voyage  he  past  im  rov  Tze"kuyovg  diaOeovrac;.  I confess  it  seems  to  me  a question 
whether  so  expert  a scoffer,  if  he  had  meant  this,  would  not  have  done  it  better ; 
while  at  the  same  time  the  hint  which  he  gives,  1.  1,  c.  2,  that  there  is  something  un- 
der these  absurd  and  extravagant  travellers’  tales  which  he  has  strung  together,  that 
they  contain  every  one  allusions  to  the  fables  and  portents  of  poets  and  historians  and 
philosophers,  makes  it  not  altogether  improbable ; and  in  the  Philopseudes,  where  there 
seems  to  me  far  more  evident  allusions  to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel, — as  for  instance, 
a miraculously -healed  man  taking  up  his  bed,  (c.  11,)  the  expulsion  of  the  evil  spirit 
from  a demoniac,  (c.  16,)  reminding  one  singularly  of  that  recorded  Mark  ix.  14 — 29 ; 
this  also  of  walking  on  the  water  recurs  (c.  13,)  among  the  incredible  things  proposed 
for  the  wise  man’s  belief.  Not  otherwise  the  Golden  City  of  the  Blest,  with  its  dia- 
mond walls,  its  floors  of  ivory,  and  its  trees  bearing  fruit  every  month,  ( Ver.  Hist., 
1.  2,  c.  11 — 13,)  may  very  well  be  written  in  rivalsliip  and  in  ridicule  of  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  New  Jerusalem,  Rev.  xxi. ; as  the  story  of  the  great  multitude  of  men  who 
are  comfortably  housed  for  some  years  in  the  belly  of  a whale,  {lb.,  1.  1,  c.  30 — 42,) 
may  be  intended  in  the  same  way  to  be  an  outdoing  of  the  story  of  Jonah  and  his 
three  days’  abode  in  a like  place,  which  we  know  from  more  allusions  than  one  was 
an  especial  object  of  the  flouts  of  the  heathen.  See  Augustine,  Ep.  102,  qu.  6 ; and 
Josephus,  {Antt.  1.  9,  c.  10,  § 2,)  who  aimed  to  make  his  words  acceptable  to  the  cul- 
tivated Roman  world,  gets  over  it  with  a Aoyof — as  some  say.  On  the  point  of  view 
under  which  Lucian  contemplated  Christianity  there  is  an  essay  by  Krebs,  He  Mali - 
tioso  Euciani  Consilio,  Ac.,  in  his  Opusc.  Acad., p.  308;  and  the  subject  is  discussed 
in  Tzschirner’s  Fall  des  Heidenthums,  p.  320. 


THE  WALKING-  ON  THE  SEA. 


225 


After  they  had  left  him,  and  when  he  had  likewise  “ sent  the  multitudes 
away , he  went  up  into  a mountain  apart  to  pray,  and  when  even  was  come , 
he  was  there  alone”  But  from  thence,  with  the  watchful  eye  of  love, 
“he  saiv  them  toiling  in  rowing  ,”  (cf.  Exod.  iii.  7 ; Ps.  lvi.  8,)  and  now, 
so  soon  as  they  had  made  proof  that  without  him  they  could  do  nothing, 
he  was  with  them  once  more.  For  it  had  been  his  purpose  in  all  this, 
as  Chrysostom  well  brings  out,  to  discipline  and  lead  them  up  to  ever 
higher,  things  than  they  had  learned  before.  In  the  first  storm  he  was 
present  in  the  ship  with  them ; and  thus  they  must  have  felt  all  along, 
that  if  it  came  to  the  worst  they  might  rouse  him,  and  the  very  conscious- 
ness of  his  presence  must  have  given  them  the  sense  of  comparative 
security.  But  he  will  not  have  them  to  be  clinging  only  to  the  sense  of 
his  bodily  presence, — as  ivy,  needing  always  an  outward  support, — but 
as  hardy  forest  trees  which  can  brave  a blast ; — and  this  time  he  puts 
them  forth  into  the  danger  alone,  even  as  some  loving  mother-bird 
thrusts  her  fledglings  from  the  nest,  that  they  may  find  their  own  wings 
and  learn  to  use  them.  And  by  the  issue  he  will  awaken  in  them  a 
confidence  in  his  ever-ready  help ; for  as  his  walking  over  the  sea  must 
have  been  altogether  unimagined  by  them,  they  may  have  easily  de- 
spaired of  that  help  reaching  them,  and  yet  it  does  not  fail  them.  When 
he  has  tried  them  to  the  uttermost,  “ in  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,” 
he  appears  beside  them,  thus  teaching  them  for  all  their  after  life,  in  all 
coming  storms  of  temptation,  that  he  is  near  them ; that  however  he 
may  not  be  seen  always  by  their  bodily  eyes,  however  they  may  seem 
cut  off  from  his  assistance,  yet  is  he  indeed  a very  present  help  in  the 
needful  time  of  trouble. 

Nor  can  we,  I think,  fail  to  recognize  the  symbolic  character  which 
this  whole  transaction  wears.  As  that  bark  was  upon  those  stormy 
seas,  such  is  oftentimes  the  Church.  It  seems  as  though  it  had  not  its 
Lord  with  it,  such  little  way  does  it  make ; so  baffled  is  it  and  tor- 
mented by  the  opposing  storms  of  the  world.  But  his  eye  is  on  it  still ; 
he  is  in  the  mountain  apart  praying ; ever  living,  an  ascended  Saviour, 
to  make  intercession  for  his  people.  And  when  at  length  the  time  of 
urgent  need  has  arrived,  he  is  suddenly  with  it,  and  that  in  marvellous 
ways  past  finding  out, — and  then  all  that  before  was  laborious  is  easy, 
and  the  toiling  rowers  are  anon  at  the  haven  where  they  would  be.* 


* Thus  Bede : Labor  discipulorum  in  remigando  et  contrarius  eis  ventus  labores 
sanctse  Ecclesise  varios  designat,  quae  inter  undas  seculi  adversantis  et  immundorum 
flatus  spirituum  ad  quietem  patriae  ccelestis,  quasi  ad  fidam  litoris  stationem,  pervenire 
conatur.  Ubi  bene  dicitur,  quia  navis  erat  in  medio  mari  et  ipse  solus  in  terra : quia 
nonnunquam  Ecclesia  tantis  Gentilium  pressuris  non  solum  afflicta,  seu  et  fcedata  est. 


226 


THE  WALKING  ON  THE  SEA. 


The  disciples  were  terrified  at  the  first  apparition  of  the  Lord,  11  for 
they  supposed  it  had  been  a spirit:”*  even  as  often  he  is  mistaken  still, 
when  he  comes  to  his  people  in  some  unaccustomed  form,  by  some  un- 
wonted way,  in  the  shape  of  some  affliction,  in  the  way  of  some  cross ; 
they  too  cry  out  for  fear,  though  indeed  he  comes  charged  with  blessing. 
They  mistake  him  for  some  terrible  phantom,  till  his  well-known  voice, 
his  “ Fear  not,  it  is  I”  reassures  them,  and  they  know  with  whom  they 
have  to  do.f  And  yet,  if  indeed  it  was  he,  and  if  he  was  indeed  com- 
ing to  the  help  of  his  own,  that  which  perplexed  them  the  most,  being 
seemingly  a contradiction  of  any  such  purpose,  was,  that  when  he  came 
nigh  to  the  bark,  “ he  would  have  passed  them  by”  (Mark  vi.  48.)  It 
perplexed  them  for  a moment ; it  has  perplexed  others  lastingly : for  it 
has  been  said  by  those  who  are  seeking  to  discover  inner  inconsisten- 
cies in  the  Gospels,  Why  wish  to  pass  them  by  and  to  escape  them, 
when  he  was  coming  for  this  very  purpose,  that  he  might  reassure  them 
and  aid  them  1 and  when  he  was  no  sooner  discovered,  or  at  least  de- 
tained by  their  cries,  than  he  ascended  into  the  ship  where  they  were  ? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this,  even  as  every  other  dealing  of  God 
with  his  people,  is  difficult  to  be  understood  of  them,  to  whom  the 
standing  point  of  faith  is  altogether  strange.  This  apparent  passing  by, 
on  the  Lord’s  part,  of  his  disciples,  was  that  by  which  their  prayer  was 
to  be  called  out,  that  he  would  not  pass  them  by,  that  he  would  not  for- 
sake them. | Exactly  in  the  same  way,  walking  with  his  two  disciples 
to  Emmaus,  after  his  Resurrection,  “ he  made  as  though  he  would  have 
gone  further,”  thus  drawing  out  from  them  the  entreaty  that  he  would 
abide.  And  at  the  root  of  what  a multitude  of  God’s  other  dealings 

ut,  si  fieri  posset,  Redemptor  ipsius  earn  prorsus  deseruisse  ad  tempus  videretur  .... 
Yidet  [tamen]  Dominus  laborantes  in  mari,  quamvis  ipse  positus  in  terra, ; quia  etsi 
ad  horam  differre  videatur  auxilium  tribulatis  impendere,  nihilominus  eos,  ne  in  tri- 
bulationibus  deficiant,  suae  respectu  pietatis  corroborat,  et  aliquando  etiam  manifesto 
adjutorio,  victis  adversitatibus,  quasi  calcatis  sedatisque  fluctuum  voluminibus,  liberat. 
Cf.  Augustine,  Serm.  75.  So,  too,  Anselm  {Horn.  3):  Nam  quia  insurgunt  fluctus, 
potest  ista  navicula  turbari,  sed  quia  Christus  orat,  non  potest  mergi. 

* $ dvracya  — (puaya  vvKrepLvov.  (Job  xx.  8.) 

f Calvin : Pii  . . . . audito  ejus  nomine,  quod  illis  est  certum  et  divini  amoris  et 
suae  salutis  pignus,  quasi  a morte  in  vitam  excitati  animos  colligunt,  et  quasi  sere- 
num  ccelum  hilares  conspiciunt,  quieti  in  terra,  resident,  et  omnium  malorum  victores 
ejus  praesidium  omnibus  periculis  opponunt. 

t Augustine  (De  Cons.  Evany.,  1.  2,  c.  47) : Quomodo  ergo  eos  volebat  praeterire, 
quos  paventes  ita  confirmat,  nisi  quia  ilia  Voluntas  praetereundi  ad  eliciendum  ilium 
clamor  era  valebat,  cui  subveniri  oportebat  ? Corn,  a Lapide : Yolebat  praeterire  eos, 
quasi  eos  non  curans,  nec  ad  eos  pertinens,  sed  alio  pergens,  ut  in  eis  metum  et  cla- 
morem  excitaret. 


THE  WALKING  ON  THE  SEA, 


227 


does  something  of  the  same  kind  lie : so  that  this  is  not  an  insulated  cir- 
cumstance, but  one  which  finds  its  analogies  every  where  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  in  the  Christian  life.  What  part  does  Christ  sustain  here  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  in  the  parable  of  the  unjust  judge,  (Luke  xviii. 
2,)  or  the  churlish  friend,  (Luke  xi.  5,)  he  makes  God  to  sustain1?  or 
different  from  that  which  he  himself  sustained  when  he  came  not  to  the 
help  of  the  sisters  of  Bethany  when  their  need  seemed  the  highest? 
And  are  not  all  such  cries  of  the  faithful  in  the  Psalms  as  this,  “ Lord, 
why  hidest  thou  thy  face  ?”  confessions  that  he  does  so  deal  with  his 
servants,  that  by  delaying  and  seeming  to  pass  by,  he  calls  out  their 
faith,  and  their  prayers  that  he  would  come  to  them  soon  and  abide  with 
them  always  % 

But  now,  being  as  it  were  detained  by  that  cry,  he  at  once  scatters 
and  rebukes  their  fears : “ Be  of  good  cheer , it  is  I;  . e not  afraid .” 
Whereupon  follows  that  characteristic  rejoinder  of  Peter,  which,  with 
its  consequences,  St.  Matthew  alone  records : “ Lord , if  it  be  thou , bid 
me  come  unto  thee  on  the  water”  That  “ if”  must  not  be  interpreted  as 
implying  any  doubts  upon  his  part  whether  it  was  the  Lord  or  not : a 
Thomas,  indeed,  may  have  desired  to  have  him  with  him  in  the  ship,  ere 
he  would  fully  believe  that  it  was  no  phantom,  but  the  Lord  himself ; 
but  the  fault  of  a Peter  would  not  be  in  this  line.  Rather  do  the  words 
mean  : “ Since  it  is  thou,  command  me  to  come  unto  thee.”  He  feels 
rightly  that  Christ’s  command  must  go  before  his  coming.  And,  doubt- 
less, there  was  in  the  utterance  of  this  desire  the  promptness  of  love, 
which  made  him  desire  to  be  where  his  Lord  was.  (Cf.  John  xxi.  7.) 
It  may  be,  too,  that  he  would  fain  compensate  for  that  exclamation  of 
terror  in  which  he  had  joined  with  the  rest,  by  an  heroic  act  of  courage 
and  affiance.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  was  there,  as  the  issue  proved, 
something  mingling  with  all  this,  which  made  the  whole  incident  a 
rehearsal  of  his  greater  presumption  and  greater  fall,  which  should  here- 
after come  to  pass.  In  that  “ Bid  me ,”  the  fault  lay.  He  would  go 
before  the  other  disciples  ; he  wrould  signalize  himself  by  a mightier  tes- 
timony of  faith  than  any  of  the  others  would  dare  to  render.  It  is  but 
again,  “ Although  all  shall  be  offended,  yet  will  not  I.” 

We  should  not  fail  to  observe,  and  with  reverence  to  admire,  the 
wisdom  and  love  of  the  Lord’s  answer.  Another,  having  enough  of 
spiritual  insight  to  detect  the  fault  which  lurked  in  Peter’s  proposal, 
might  yet  by  a coarser  treatment  have  marred  all,  and  lost  for  one  in 
Peter’s  condition  the  lesson  which  it  so  much  imported  him  to  receive; 
had  he,  for  instance,  bid  him  to  remain  where  he  was,  at  once  checking 
the  outbreaks  of  his  fervent  spirit,  which,  when  purified  from  all  of 
earthly  which  clung  to  them,  were  to  carry  him  so  far  in  the  work  of 


228 


THE  WALKOSTGr  ON  THE  SEA. 


his  Lord,  and  quite  losing  for  him  the  instruction  which  by  his  partial 
failure  he  should  win.  But  with  more  gracious  and  discriminating  wis- 
dom the  great  Master  of  souls ; who  yet,  knowing  what  the  event  must 
prove,  pledges  not  himself  for  the  issue  of  his  coming.  Peter  had  said, 
“ Bid  me,”  but  he  does  not  reply,  “I  bid  thee.”  Peter  had  said  to 
“ come  to  thee”  but  he  does  not  reply,  “Come  to  me” — only  “ Come;” 
that  is,  “ Come,  if  thou  wilt ; make  the  experiment,  if  thou  desirest.” 
In  that  “ Come”  an  assurance  is  indeed  involved  that  Peter  should  not 
be  wholly  swallowed  up  by  the  waves,  but  no  pledge  for  the  successful 
issue  of  the  feat ; which  yet,  according  to  his  faithfulness,  would  have 
been  involved,  had  his  words  been  the  entire  echo  of  his  disciple’s.  This 
successful  issue  depended  upon  Peter  himself, — whether  he  should  keep 
the  beginning  of  his  confidence  firm  unto  the  end.  And  the  Lord,  who 
knew  what  was  in  him,  knew  that  he  would  not ; — that  this  was  not  the 
pure  courage  of  faith ; — that  what  of  carnal  overboldness  there  was  in  it 
would  infallibly  be  exchanged,  when  the  stress  of  the  trial  came,  for  fear 
and  unbelief. 

And  so  it  proved.  Peter  for  a while  did  walk — so  long  as  he  looked 
to  his  Lord  and  to  him  only,  he  also  was  able  to  walk  upon  the  un- 
steady surface  of  the  sea ; to  tread  upon  the  waters  which  for  him  also 
were  not  waves.  But  when  he  took  counsel  of  flesh  and  blood,  when  he 
saw  something  else  besides  Jesus,  when,  because  “ he  saw  the  wind  hois 
terous , he  was  afraid”  then  he  began  to  sink, — not,  that  is,  his  feet  only 
to  be  wetted,  but  he  began  to  be  submerged;  and  he  who  thought  to 
make  a show  openly  of  his  greater  courage  before  all  the  other  disciples, 
must  now  in  the  presence  of  them  all  confess  his  terror,  and  reveal  the 
weakness,  as  he  had  thought  to  display  the  strength,  of  his  faith.  In  this 
his  peril  his  swimmer’s  art  (John  xxi.  7)  profits  him  nothing ; for  there 
is  no  mingling  of  nature  and  grace  in  this  way.  He  who  has  entered 
the  wonder-world  of  grace  must  not  suppose  that  he  may  fall  out  of  it 
at  any  moment  that  he  will,  and  betake  himself  to  his  old  resources  of 
nature ; he  has  foregone  these,  and  must  carry  out  what  he  has  begun, 
or  fail  at  his  peril. 

But  Peter  has  to  do  with  one  who  will  not  let  him  greatly  fall ; his 
experience  shall  be  that  of  the  Psalmist : “ When  I said,  My  foot  slip- 
peth,  thy  mercy,  O Lord,  held  me  up.”  His  “ Lord , save  me,”  is  an- 
swered at  once.  “ Immediately  Jesus  stretched  forth  his  hand  and  caught 
him.”  And  then  how  gracious  the  rebuke ! “ Thou  little  believing,” 

not,  “Thou  unbelieving;”  and  “ Wherefore  didst  thou  doubt?”  not, 
“Wherefore  didst  thou  come?”  not  checking,  as  he  then  would  have 
done,  the  future  impulses  of  his  servant’s  boldness,  but  rather  encour 
aging  them,  showing  him  how  he  could  do  all  things  through  Christ 


THE  WALKING-  ON  THE  SEA. 


229 


strengthening  him,  and  that  his  fault  lay,  not  in  haying  undertaken  too 
much,  but  in  having  too  little  believed  the  strength  that  would  uphold 
him  in  his  undertaking.  * And  not  until  by  that  sustaining  hand  he  has 
restored  confidence  to  the  fearful  one,  and  made  him  feel  that  he  can  in- 
deed tread  under  foot  those  waves  of  the  unquiet  sea,  does  he  speak  even 
this  word  of  a gentle  rebuke.  The  courage  of  the  disciple  has  returned, 
so  that  the  Master  speaks  of  his  doubt  as  of  something  which  is  already 
past:  “ Wherefore  didst  thou  doubt ? Before  the  doubt  arose  in  thy 
heart,  thou  didst  walk  on  these  waves,  and  now  that  thy  faith  has  re- 
turned, thou  dost  walk  on  them  again ; thou  seest  that  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble, that  it  lies  but  in  thy  faithful  will ; that  all  things  are  possible  to 
him  that  believeth.” 

Nor  can  we  look  at  this  episode  of  the  miracle  as  otherwise  than 
itself  also  symbolic.  Peter  is  here  the  image  of  all  the  faithful  of  all 
ages,  in  the  seasons  of  their  weakness  and  their  fear.  So  long  as  they 
are  strong  in  faith,  they  are  able  to  tread  under  foot  all  the  most  turbu- 
lent agitations  of  an  unquiet  world ; but  when  they  lose  heart  and  fear, 
when  instead  of  “looking  unto  Jesus,”  they  look  at  the  stormy  winds 
and  waters,  then  these  prevail  against  them,  and  they  begin  to  sink,  and 
were  it  not  for  Christ’s  sustaining  hand,  which  is  stretched  out  in  answer 
to  their  cry,  they  would  be  wholly  overwhelmed  and  swallowed  up.f 

Those  that  are  watching  for  contradictions  between  the  parallel  nar- 
ratives of  the  Evangelists,  affirm  that  here  they  find  such  a one,  between 
John  on  one  side,  and  Matthew  and  Mark  on  the  other  ; that  according 
to  the  two  last,  the  Lord  did  after  this  ascend  into  the  ship,  which  indeed 
from  their  accounts  is  plain,  for  “ he  went  up  unto  them  into  the  ship 
while  St.  John  says  only,  as  these  will  have  it,  that  they  were  willing 
to  receive  him ; but  implies  by  his  silence  that  they  did  not  in  fact  do  so, 


* Bengel : Non  reprehenditur  quod  exierit  e navi,  sed  quod  non  manserit  in 
firmitate  fidei. 

f Augustine  (Enarr.  hi  Ps.  xxxix.  6) : Calca  mare,  ne  mergaris  in  mari.  And 
again  ( Serm . 86,  c.  6) : Attendite  seculum  quasi  mare,  ventus  validus  et  magna  tem- 
pestas.  Unicuique  sua  cupiditas,  tempestas  est.  Amas  Deum,  ambulas  super  mare  : 
sub  pedibus  tuis  est  seculi  tumor.  Amas  seculum,  absorbebit  te.  Amatores  suoe 
vorare  novit,  non  portare.  Sed  cum  fluctuat  cupiditate  cor  tuum,  ut  vincas  tuam  cu- 
piditatem,  invoca  Christi  divinitatem  . . . Et  si  motus  est  pes  tuus,  si  titubas,  si  aliqua 
non  super  as,  si  mergi  incipis,  die,  Domine,  pereo,  libera  me.  Die,  Domine,  pereo,  ne 
pereas.  Solus  enim  a morte  carnis  liberat  te,  qui  mortuus  est  in  carne  pro  te.  And 
again:  Titubatio  ista,  fratres,  quasi  mors  fidei  fuit.  Sed  ubi  exclamavit,  fides  iterum 
resurrexit.  Non  ambularet,  nisi  crederet,  sed  nec  mergeretur,  nisi  dubitaret.  In 
Petro  itaque  communis  omnium  nostrum  consideranda  conditio,  ut  si  nos  in  aliquo 
tentatiouum  ventus  conatur  subvertere,  vel  unda  submergere,  clamemus  ad  Christum. 
Cf.  De  Cant.  Novo,  c.  2. 


230 


THE  WALKING  ON  THE  SEA. 


the  ship  being  rapidly,  and,  as  would  appear,  with  miraculous  swiftness, 
brought  to  the  end  of  its  course.  The  whole  question  turns  on  the 
phrase  which  we  translate,  and  I have  no  doubt  rightly  as  regards  the 
circumstance  which  actually  took  place,  u They  willingly  received  him 
into  the  ship.”  It  is  quite  true  that  the  words  themselves  mean  no  more 
than  this  : “ They  were  willing  to  receive  him  into  the  ship but  with 
the  implicit  understanding  that  what  they  were  willing  to  do,  they  did. 
They  who  before  were  terrified  and  dreaded  his  approach,  as  though  he 
had  been  a spirit,  were  now  willing  to  receive  him  into  the  ship  with 
them,  and  did  so  receive  him.*  Chrysostom  indeed  understands  it 
otherwise,  that  he  did  not  ascend  into  the  ship.  He  supposes  St.  John 
to  be  relating  a different  event  from  that  recorded  by  the  other  Evange- 
lists, which  is  beyond  measure  improbable. 

Neither  St.  Matthew  nor  St.  Mark  mentions  +he  swift  and  sudden 
bringing  of  the  ship  to  “ the  land  whither  they  went”  which  seems  im- 
plied by  the  account  of  St.  John,  but  only  that  “ the  wind  ceased ” so 

* It  may  be  a question  whether  we  should  not  have  done  better  in  leaving  the 
words  haftelv  avrov , “ They  were  willing  to  receive  him.”  Thus  it  was  in  the 

Vulgate,  Voluerunt  recipere  eum,  and  so  in  our  earlier  English  translations.  It  is 
probably  to  Beza’s  influence  that  we  owe  the  change; — he  translates  the  words,  Vo- 
lente  animo  receperunt  eum,  and  defends  the  translation  thus : Itaque  verbuin  ijdehov 
opponitur  ei  quod  ante  dixerat,  eos  videlicet  fuisse  perterritos : ex  quo  intelligitur  ipsos 
initio  fuisse  eum  aversatos,  nunc  vero  agnitS,  ejus  voce  et  mutatis  animis  eum  quern 
fugiebant,  cupidb  accepisse  in  navem.  This  is  perfectly  true,  also  that  edeXeiv  is  fre- 
quently used  with  an  infinitive,  as  the  adverb  (=  spontel  to  the  verb  which  is  so 
taken  out  of  its  infinitive  mood.  Yet  had  the  passage  been  left,  “ They  were  willing 
to  receive  him,”  it  would  have  been  quite  clear  what  the  sacred  historian  meant,  that 
this  willingness  which,  now  when  they  knew  it  was  indeed  their  Master,  they  felt, 
issued  in  the  actual  receiving  of  him : and  none  could  then  accuse  the  translators  of 
going  out  of  their  way  to  produce  a harmony  which  in  the  original  did  not,  at  least 
at  all  so  evidently,  exist.  That  IdeXeiv  means  often  to  wish  to  do  a thing  and  to  do, 
we  have  abundant  proof  in  the  Greek  of  the  N.  T.  Thus  Matt,  xviii.  23,  a king  de- 
sired to  take  account  (jjOefan ie  ovvapat  /t oyov)  with  his  servants,  and  as  we  know  from 
the  sequel  did  so.  In  like  manner,  John  i.  44,  Jesus  desired  to  go  forth  into  Galilee 
{rjde'hrjaev  kt-e'kOelv),  and  as  we  learn  c.  ii.  1,  actually  went.  The  word  when  no  more  is 
added,  may  quite  as  well  imply  an  accomplished,  as  a balked,  desire.  It  is  of  this 
passage,  capable  of  this  most  easy  explanation,  that  one  has  lately  written,  “ By  the 
irreconcilable  contradiction  between  John  and  the  synoptic  evangelists  in  the  matter 
of  receiving  Christ  into  the  ship,  one  or  other  account  must  be  given  up.”  To  be 
sure  he  does  his  best  to  make  a difficulty,  if  he  cannot  find  one,  for  he  says  Kal  in  the 
second  clause  of  ver.  21  must  be  taken  adversative, — “ They  were  willing  to  receive 
him  into  the  ship,  but  straightway  the  ship  was  at  the  kind,”  so  that,  as  he  would 
make  St.  John  to  say,  their  purpose  was  hindered  ; and  De  Wette  in  the  same  way, 
Aber  alsbald  war  das  Schiff  am  Lande.  Let  any  one  be  a judge  of  the  honesty  of 
such  a tampering  with  the  record  on  which  judgment  must  proceed. 


THE  WALKING  ON"  THE  SEA. 


231 


soon  as  the  Lord  was  “ come  into  the  ship.”  St.  Mark,  however,  relates 
how  this  and  all  which  they  had  witnessed  called  forth  the  infinite  asto- 
nishment  of  his  disciples : “ they  were  sore  amazed  in  themselves  beyond 
measure , and  wondered ;”  and  St.  Matthew  tells  us  how  the  impression 
was  not  confined  to  them  alone : but  others  who  were  sailing  with  them, 
probably  the  crew,*  and  it  may  be  some  other  passengers  in  the  same 
vessel,  described  generally  as  “ they  that  were  in  the  ship” — these  also 
caught  a glimpse,  a momentary  one  it  may  have  been,  of  him  with 
whom  they  had  to  do,  and  “ came  and  worshipped  him , saying , Of  a truth 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God (cf.  John  i.  49 ;)  for  they  felt  more  or  less 
clearly  that  they  had  to  do  with  one  who  stood  in  wonderful  relation 
with  him  of  whom  it  is  written,  “ Thy  way  is  in  the  sea,  and  thy  path 
in  the  great  waters,  and  thy  footsteps  are  not  known;”  (Ps.  lxxvii.  19;) 
“ Thou  didst  walk  through  the  sea  with  thine  horses,  through  the  heap 
of  great  waters ;”  (Hab.  iii.  15 ;)  “ Which  alone  spreadeth  out  the  heav- 
ens, and  treadeth  upon  the  waves  of  the  sea.”  (Job  ix.  S.f) 

It  is  a docetic  view  of  the  person  of  Christ,];  which  conceives  of  his 
body  as  permanently  exempt  from  the  laws  of  gravity,  and  thus  explains 
the  miracle ; a hard  and  mechanical  view,  which  makes  the  seat  of  the 
miracle  to  have  been  in  the  waters  rendered  solid  under  his  feet.  For 
rather  was  it  the  will  of  Christ  which  bore  him  triumphantly  above 
those  waters ; even  as  it  was  to  have  been  the  will  of  Peter,  that  will 
indeed  made  in  the  highest  degree  energetic  by  faith  on  the  Son  of  God, 
which  should  in  like  manner  have  enabled  him  to  walk  on  the  great 
deep,  and,  though  with  partial  and  transient  failure,  did  so  enable  him. 

* Jerome : Nautae  atque  vector es. 

f rO  'KepiTvaTtiv,  log  hf  iddtpovg,  hvl  daXdaarjg.  Eusebius  (Dem.  Kvang.,  1.  9,  c.  12) 
finds  a special  fulfilment  of  these  words  of  Job  in  this  miracle  of  our  Lord,  as  also 
he  finds  in  these  waves  the  symbol  of  a mightier  and  wilder  sea,  even  that  of  sin  and 
death,  which  Christ  trod  under  his  feet  when  he,  in  a far  higher  sense  than  that  in 
which  the  words  were  first  spoken, 

....  metus  omnes  et  inexorabile  fatum 

Subjecit  pedibus , strepitumque  Acherontis  avari ; 

and  he  quotes  Ps.  lxxiv.  13,  14,  “ Thou  didst  divide  the  sea  by  thy  strength,  thou 
brakest  the  heads  of  the  dragons  in  the  waters ; thou  brakest  the  heads  of  leviathan 
in  pieces,  and  gavest  them  to  be  meat  to  the  people  inhabiting  the  wilderness and 
Job  xxxviii.  16,  17,  where  the  Almighty  says  to  man,  “ Hast  thou  entered  into  the 
springs  of  the  sea  ? or  hast  thou  walked  in  the  search  of  the  depth  ? Have  the  gates 
of  death  been  opened  unto  thee,  and  hast  thou  seen  the  doors  of  the  shadow  of  death  ?” 
that  is,  “ Hast  thou  done  this,  as  I have  done  ?” 

\ The  Cathari,  a Gnostic  sect  of  the  middle  ages,  actually  appealed  to  this  mira- 
cle in  confirmation  of  their  views  concerning  the  body  of  Christ,  as  a heavenly,  and 
not  a truly  human,  body.  (Neander,  Kirch.  Gesch.,  v.  5,  p.  1126.) 


232  THE  WALKING-  ON  THE  SEA. 

It  has  been  already  observed  that  the  miracle,  according  to  its  true  idea, 
is  not  the  violation,  nor  yet  the  suspension  of  law,  but  the  incoming  of 
a higher  law,  as  of  a spiritual  in  the  midst  of  natural  laws,  and  the  mo* 
mentary  asserting  for  that  higher  law,  the  predominance  which  it  was 
intended  to  have,  and  but  for  man’s  fall  it  would  always  have  had,  over 
the  lower  ; and  with  this  a prophecy  of  the  prevalence  which  it  shall  one 
day  recover.  So  was  there  here  a sign  of  the  lordship  of  man’s  will, 
when  that  will  is  in  absolute  harmony  with  God’s  will,  over  external 
nature.  In  regard  of  this  very  law  of  gravity,  a feeble,  and  for  the 
most  part  unconsciously  possessed,  remnant  of  his  power  survives  to  man 
in  the  well-attested  fact  that  his  body  is  lighter  when  he  is  awake  than 
sleeping  ;*  from  whence  we  conclude  that  the  human  consciousness,  as 
an  inner  centre,  works  as  an  opposing  force  to  the  attraction  of  the 
earth  and  the  centripetal  force  of  gravity,  however  unable  now  to  over- 
bear it.f 

* It  was  noticed  long  ago  by  Pliny,  H.  JV.,  1.  7,  c.  18.  Every  nurse  that  has 
carried  a child  would  bear  witness  to  the  fact. 

\ Prudentius  {Apotheosis,  655)  has  some  sounding  lines  upon  this  miracle:— 

Ipse  super  fluidas  plantis  nitentibus  undas 
Ambulat,  ac  presso  firmat  vestigia  fluctu ; 

Increpat  ipse  notos,  et  flatibus  otia  mandat  . . . 

Ninguidus  agnoscit  Boreas  atque  imbrifer  Eurus 
Nimborum  dominum,  tempestatumque  potentem, 

Excitamque  hyemem  verrunt  ridente  sereno. 


XVIII. 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  ONE  BOHN  3LIND. 


John  ix. 

It  appears  upon  the  whole  most  probable  that  this  work  of  power  was 
wrought  upon  the  same  day  on  which  the  memorable  discourse  was 
spoken,  beginning  at  John  vii.  34,  and  continuing  to  the  end  of  the  viiith 
chapter, — a discourse  of  which  the  history  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery 
is  only  an  interruption,  and  an  intercalation  which  easily  betrays  itself  as 
such.  In  this  case  it  will  be,  that  as  our  Lord  was  passing  through  the 
city  from  the  temple,  to  escape  the  sudden  outbreak  of  Jewish  anger,  he 
paused  to  accomplish  this  miracle — probably  in  the  immediate  neighbor- 
hood of  the  temple,  which  we  know  was  oftentimes  the  place  where 
beggars,  cripples,  and  other  such  sufferers,  took  their  station.  (Acts  iii.  1, 
2.)  There  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  to  mark  a break;  on  the  contrary, 
the  “ passed  by”  of  the  final  verse  of  chapter  viii.  seems  taken  up  by  the 
same  word  in  the  first  verse  of  this.*  It  is  an  additional  argument  in 
favor  of  this  view,  that  we  know  that  other  discourse  to  have  been 
spoken  on  a Sabbath : for  it  was  spoken  on  the  last  day  of  the  feast  of 
tabernacles,  (vii.  37,)  which  was  always  such,  and  this  healing  took 
place  also  on  a Sabbath,  (ix.  14.)  Moved  by  these  reasons,  the  an- 
cient interpreters  would  not  see  here  any  break  in  the  narrative,  and 
with  them  most  of  the  moderns  consent. | 

It  has  been  objected  against  this,  that  on  that  day  he  evidently  de- 
parted alone  from  the  temple ; while  here  his  disciples  are  with  him. 
But  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that  they  also  extricated  themselves,  though  not 

* Unless  indeed  viii.  59  is  spurious.  It  is  wanting  in  many  authorities,  and  in 
others  great  variations  of  the  reading,  always  a suspicious  circumstance,  occur. 

\ As  Maldonatus,  Tittman,  Tholuck,  Olshausen. 

SO 


234 


THE  OPENING  THE  E5TES 


in  the  same  wonderful  manner  as  he  did,  from  the  excited  multitude, 
and  joined  their  Lord  without.  It  has  been  objected,  too,  that  Christ  ap- 
pears to  have  wrought  this  work  more  leisurely,  more  without  fear  of 
interruption,  than  well  could  have  been,  immediately  after  the  moment 
when  he  had  been  compelled  to  withdraw  from  the  fury  of  his  enemies. 
Yet  this  circumstance  should  be  rather  taken  as  affording  a beautiful  pic- 
ture of  his  calmness  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies,  who  found  no  time 
unfit  for  a work  of  mercy  and  love ; who  even  at  the  moment  when  he 
had  hardly  escaped  the  stones  of  the  Jews,  paused  to  accomplish  this 
work  of  grace.  There  seems,  indeed,  as  we  shall  see,  allusion  to  some- 
thing of  the  kind  at  ver.  4,  5.  “ There  is  need,”  our  Lord  would  say, 

“ that  I should  work  this  work  now,  however  out  of  season  it  may  seem : 
for  this  1 night, ’ which  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  is  bringing  on,  is  near,  and 
then  the  time  for  working  will  be  over.”  (Compare  the  exactly  parallel 
passage,  John  xi.  7 — 10.) 

The  sad  history  of  this  man  “ blind  from  his  birth  f*  may  have  been 
already  familiar  to  his  disciples,  as  he  was  evidently  a well-known  beg- 
gar in  Jerusalem,  one  with  whose  story  many  were  acquainted ; (ver. 
8 ;)  or  it  may  have  been  one  of  his  ways  of  stirring  pity  and  compas- 
sion  in  the  passers  by,  to  announce  that  his  calamity  reached  back  so 
far,  and  thus  it  may  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  disciples,  and 
proved  the  occasion  of  their  question.  They  would  fain  learn  from 
their  Master,  who  was  able  to  solve  every  difficulty  which  rose  up  in 
their  minds,  “ Who  did  sin , this  man  or  his  parents , that  he  was  born 
blind f”  But  what  they  could  have  meant  by  this  latter  alternative, 
when  they  supposed  as  possible  that  it  was  for  his  own  sins  that  the  man 
was  born  blind,  has  naturally  been  the  source  of  much  perplexity. 

Three  or  four  explanations  havp  been  offered : the  first,  that  the 
Jews  believed  in  a transmigration  of  souls;  and  that  these  sins  which 
the  disciples  assumed  as  possible  causes  of  his  blindness,  were  those  of 
some  anterior  life, — sins  which  were  being  punished  and  expiated  now. 
This,  as  is  well  known,  is  the  Buddhist  doctrine ; and  not  an  accident, 
but  belonging  to  the  centre  of  their  religious  convictions ; but  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  there  was  any  such  faith  among  the  J ews.  It  may  have 
been  the  dream  of  a few  philosophic  Jews,  but  was  never  the  faith  of 
plain  and  simple  men:  so  that  this  explanation  may  be  regarded,  as 
Olshausen  declares  it,  altogether  as  antiquated,  and  not  worthy  even  to 
be  considered. 


* ’E/c  yevETrjg  = Ik  Koikiag  {njrpog,  Acts  iii.  2.  The  healing  of  the  blind  man 
here,  and  the  lame  man  there,  have  this  point  of  resemblance,  that  in  each  a life-long 
defect  is  removed. 


OF  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 


235 


Lightfoot  adduces  passages  to  show  that  the  J ews  believed  a child 
might  sin  in  its  mother’s  womb,  in  proof  of  which  they  referred  to  the 
struggle  between  Jacob  and  Esau ; (Gen.  xxv.  22 ;)  and  he,  and  others 
after  him,  think  that  out  of  this  popular  belief  the  question  grew. 

Tholuck,  following  an  earlier  interpreter,  supposes  that  the  theory  of 
the  apostles  was,  that  God  had  foreknown  some  great  sin  which  this 
man  would  commit,  and  so  by  anticipation  had  punished  him.  But  as 
such  a dealing  on  God’s  part  is  altogether  without  analogy  in  Scripture, 
so  is  there  not  the  slightest  hint  that  men  had  ever  fallen  on  it  as  an  ex- 
planation of  the  suffering  in  the  world ; — and,  indeed,  they  could  not : 
for  while  the  idea  of  retribution  is  one  of  the  deepest  in  the  human 
heart,  this  of  punishment  which  runs  before  the  crime  which  it  punishes, 
is  not  one  in  which  it  would  easily  find  itself. 

Chrysostom  imagines  that  it  was  upon  their  part  a reductio  ad  absur- 
dum  of  the  argument  which  connected  sin  and  suffering  together.  It 
could  not  be  this  man  that  brought  this  penalty  on  himself, — for  he  was 
born  with  it.  It  could  not  be  the  sin  of  his  parents  that  brought  it  on 
him ; for  we  know  that  each  man  shall  bear  his  own  burden ; — that  the 
children’s  teeth  are  not  set  on  edge  because  the  parents  ate  sour  grapes. 
But  this  is  very  artificial,  and  with  little  of  likelihood  in  it.  Honest  and 
simple-hearted  men,  like  the  apostles,  would  have  been  the  last  to  try 
and  escape  a truth,  to  which  the  deepest  things  in  their  own  hearts  bore 
witness,  by  an  ingenious  dilemma. 

For  myself,  I am  rather  inclined  to  think  that  they  did  not  see,  at 
the  moment  when  they  asked  the  question,  the  self-contradiction,  as  far 
at  least  as  words  go,  which  was  involved  in  one  side  of  the  question 
— in  the  form  at  least  in  which  they  presented  it  to  their  Master ; that, 
while  they  rightly,  and  by  a most  true  moral  instinct,  discerned  the 
links  which  unite  the  sin  and  suffering  of  the  world  together,  yet  in  this 
case  they  did  not  see  how  it  must  have  been  the  sin  and  suffering,  not 
of  this  man  as  an  individual,  but  of  him  as  making  part  of  a great  whole, 
which  were  thus  connected  together:  how  the  fact  of  this  calamity 
reaching  back  to  his  birth  excluded  the  uncharitable  suspicion,  that 
wherever  there  was  a more  than  ordinary  sufferer,  there  was  a more 
than  ordinary  sinner, — leaving  only  the  most  true  thought,  that  a 
great  sin  must  be  cleaving  to  a race  of  which  any  member  could  so 
suffer. 

This,  as  it  is  continually  affirmed  in  Scripture,  so  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied in  Christ’s  answer,  “ Neither  hath  this  man  sinned , nor  his  parents ,” 
— to  which  words  must  be  added,  “ that  he  should  be  born  blind.”  The 
Lord  neither  denies  their  sin  nor  his  : all  that  he  does  is  to  turn  away 
his  disciples  from  that  most  harmful  practice  of  diving  down  with  cruel 


236 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES 


surmises  into  the  secrets  of  other  men’s  lives,  and,  like  the  friends  of 
Job,  guessing  for  them  hidden  sins  in  explanation  of  their  unusual  suf 
ferings.  This  blindness,  he  would  say,  is  the  chastening  of  no  peculiar 
sin  on  his  own  part,  or  on  his  parents’.  Seek,  therefore,  neither  here 
nor  there  the  cause  of  his  calamity ; but  see  what  nobler  explanation 
the  evil  in  the  world,  and  this  evil  in  particular,  is  capable  of  receiving. 
The  purpose  of  the  life-long  blindness  of  this  man  is  “ that  the  works  of 
God  should  he  made  manifest  in  him  and  that  through  it  and  its  remo- 
val the  grace  and  glory  of  God  might  be  magnified.  We  must  not,  in- 
deed, understand  our  Lord’s  declaration  as  though  this  man  was  used 
merely  as  a means , visited  with  this  blindness  to  the  end  that  the  power 
of  God  in  Christ  might  be  manifested  to  others  in.  its  removal.  The 
manifestation  of  the  works  of  God  has  here  a wider  reach,  and  embraces 
the  lasting  weal  of  the  man  himself;  it  includes,  indeed,  the  manifesta- 
tion of  those  works  to  the  world  and  on  the  man  ; but  it  does  not  ex- 
clude, rather  of  necessity  includes,  their  manifestation  to  him  and  in  him. 
It  entered  into  the  plan  of  God  for  the  bringing  of  this  man  to  the  light 
of  everlasting  life,  that  he  should  thus  for  a while  be  dark  outwardly  ; 
that  so  upon  this  night,  and  on  the  night  of  his  heart  at  once,  a higher 
light  might  break,  and  the  Sun  of  righteousness  arise  on  him,  with  heal- 
ing in  his  wings  for  all  his  bodily  and  all  his  spiritual  infirmities : while 
again  this  was  part  of  a larger  whole,  and  fitted  in,  according  to  his 
eternal  counsels,  to  the  great  scheme  for  the  revelation  of  the  glory  and 
power  of  the  Only-begotten  unto  the  world.  (Cf.  John  xi.  4;  Rom.  v. 
20;  ix.  17;  xi.  25,32,33.) 

Yet  while  it  was  thus,  we  are  not  to  accept  this  as  the  whole  expla- 
nation of  this  man’s  blindness.  For  it  is  the  pantheistic  explanation  of 
evil,  that  it  is  not  really  evil,  but  only  the  condition  of,  and  the  transi- 
tion to,  a higher  good ; only  appearing,  indeed,  as  evil  at  all  from  a low 
standing  point,  which  does  not  take  in  the  end  from  the  beginning.  But 
this  solution  of  the  world’s  evil,  tempting  as  it  is,  so  tempting  that  mul- 
titudes are  unable  to  resist  its  attraction,  is  yet  not  the  Christian,  which 
ever  recognizes  the  reality  of  evil,  even  while  that  evil,  through  the 
boundless  resources  of  the  Divine  love,  magnifies  more  the  glory  of 
God,  and  ultimately  exalts  higher  the  blessedness  of  the  creature.  This 
cannot,  then,  be  the  whole  explanation  of  the  blindness  which  this  man 
had  brought  with  him  into  the  world ; but  God,  who  though  not  the  au- 
thor, is  yet  the  disposer  of  evil, — who  distributes  that  which  he  did  not 
himself  bring  in,  according  to  the  counsels  of  his  wisdom  and  righteous- 
ness and  grace,  had  willed  that  on  this  man  should  be  concentrated  more 
than  the  ordinary  penalties  of  the  world’s  universal  sin,  that  a more  than 
ordinary  grace  and  glory  might  be  revealed  in  their  removing. 


OF  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 


237 


The  Lord’s  words  that  follow,  “ I must  work  the  works  of  him  that 
sent  me * * * § while  it  is  day  ; the  night  cometh , when  no  man  can  work  : As 
long  as  I am  in  the  world , I am  the  light  of  the  world are,  as  it  were, 
a girding  of  himself  up  to,  and  a justifying  of,  his  coming  work. 
Whatever  perils  beset  that  work,  yet  it  must  be  accomplished ; for  his 
time,  “ the  day ” of  his  open  activity,  of  his  walking  up  and  down 
among  the  people,  and  doing  them  good,  was  drawing  to  an  end.  “ The 
night f when  he  should  no  longer  lighten  the  world  with  his  presence, 
or  have  the  opportunity  of  doing,  with  his  own  hands  at  least,  works  like 
these,  was  approaching.  He  worked  in  the  day,  and  was  himself  the 
light  of  the  day.  The  image  is  borrowed  from  our  common  day  and 
our  common  night,  of  which  the  first  is  the  time  appointed  for  labor ; 
the  latter,  by  its  darkness,  opposes  to  many  kinds  of  labor,  obstacles  in- 
surmountable. The  difficulty  which  Olshausen  finds  in  the  words, 
“ when  no  man  can  work”  inasmuch  as  however  Christ  was  himself 
withdrawn  from  the  earth,  yet  his  disciples  'did  effectually  work,f  rises 
solely  from  his  missing  the  point  of  the  proverbial  phrase.  Our  Lord 
means  not  to  say,  “ The  night  cometh  in  which  no  other  man  can  work, 
in  which  no  work  can  be  done but  what  he  would  affirm,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  a familiar  proverb  which  has  its  truth  when  applied  to  the 
heavenly  kingdom,  is  this,  No  man  who  hath  not  done  his  work  in  the 
day,  can  do  it  in  the  night ; for  him  the  time  cometh  in  which  he  cannot 
work, — and  he  applies  this  even  to  himself.  J And  then,  with  a prophetic 
allusion  to  the  miracle  which  he  was  going  to  perform,  he  would  say, 
“ What  fitter  task  for  me  than  this  of  opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind  1 
for  as  long  as  I am  in  the  world , I am  the  light  of  the  world:  what  work 
could  become  me  better  than  this,  which  is  so  apt  a symbol  of  my 
greater  spiritual  work,  the  restoring  of  the  darkened  spiritual  vision  of 
the  race  of  men  ?”§ 

Having  thus  justified  and  explained  his  coming  work,  our  Lord  pro- 
ceeds to  the  cure.  “ When  he  had  thus  spoken , he  spat  on  the  ground 

* This  was  a favorite  Arian  passage ; see  Augustine,  Serm.  135,  c.  1 — 4,  and  his 
answer  there  to  their  abuse  of  these  words. 

f The  same  difficulty  strikes  Augustine  : Numquid  nox  erat,  quando  claudus  file 
ad  verbum  Petri  salvus  effectus  est,  immo  ad  verbum  Domini  habitantis  in  Petro  ? 
Numquid  nox  erat,  quando  transeuntibus  discipulis  segri  cum  lectulis  ponebantur,  ut 
vel  umbra  transeuntium  tangerentur  ? 

\ The  power  of  triviality  can  reach  no  further  than  it  has  reached  in  the  expo- 
sition of  Paulus : “ I must  heal  this  man’s  eyes,  while  there  is  yet  daylight  to  see, 
for  when  it  is  dark  I could  not  attempt  so  fine  and  delicate  an  operation.  See  back, 
pp.  65 — 68, 

§ So  Cyril : ’ETce'nzeq  d<ply/xat  <j>unaov  rd  h hdup  ^wrdf,  del  ye  nai  role  tov  o<j~ 
uarog  rb  yeradovvai. 


238 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES 


and  made  clay  of  the  spittle , and  he  anointed  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man 
with  the  clay.”  A medicinal  value  was  attributed  in  old  time  to  saliva,* 
and  we  have  a similiar  instance  of  its  use  in  the  case  of  another  blind 
man,  (Mark  viii.  23,)  and  also  in  the  case  of  one  who  was  suffering  not 
from  the  same  defect,  but  from  a defect  in  the  organs  of  speech  and 
hearing ; (Mark  vii.  33 ;)  neither  are  we  altogether  without  examples 
of  the  medicinal  use  of  clay.f  Yet  it  would  plainly  be  an  entirely 
erroneous  view  of  the  matter,  to  suppose  that  besides  his  divine  power, 
the  Lord  also  used  natural  remedies,  or  that  these  were  more  than  con- 
ductors, not  in  themselves  needful,  but  which  he  willingly  assumed  to  be 
the  channels  for  the  conveying  of  his  powder ; for  we  observe  at  other 
healings  Of  the  blind  no  intervention  of  such  means  finding  place. 
(Matt.  xx.  30 — 34.) . Probably  the  reasons  which  induced  the  use  of 
these  means  were  ethical ; it  was  perhaps  a help  for  the  weak  faith  of 
the  man  to  find  that  something  external  was  done. 

There  may  be  again  a question  what  was  the  exact  purport  of  the 
command,  “ Go  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam .”  Was  the  healing  itself 
connected  with  that  washing  1 or  was  the  moistened  clay  the  one  con- 
ductor of  the  healing  power,  and  the  washing  merely  designed  to  remove 
the  hinderances  which  the  medium  of  cure  would  itself,  if  suffered  to 
remain,  have  opposed  even  to  the  restored  organs  of  vision  ? Thus  I 
should  understand  it.  Whatever  other  motive  the  command  may  have 


* The  virtue  especially  of  the  saliva  jejuna,  in  cases  of  disorders  of  the  eyes,  was 
well  known  to  antiquity.  Pliny  (Id.  A.,  1.  28,  c.  7)  says,  Lippitudines  matutina 
quotidie  velut  inunctione  arceri.  In  both  accounts  (Suetoxius,  Vespas.,  c.  7 ; Ta- 
citus, Mist.,  1.  4,  c.  8)  of  that  restoring  of  a blind  man  to  sight,  attributed  to  Ves- 
pasian, the  use  of  this  remedy  occurs.  In  the  latter  the  man  appears  begging  of  the 
emperor,  ut  genas  et  oculorum  orbes  dignaretur  respergere  oris  excremento ; and 
abundant  quotations  to  the  same  effect  are  to  be  found  in  Wetstein  (in  loc.) 

f Thus  Serenus  Samonicus,  a physician  in  the  time  of  Caracalla,  who  wrote  a 
poem  upon  medicine : 

Si  tumor  insolitus  typho  se  tollat  inani, 

Turgentes  oculos  vili  circumline  coeno. 

In  this  healing  by  ctay,  while  yet  the  dust,  or  that  out  of  which  the  clay  is 
moulded,  is  that  which  most  often  afflicts  and  wounds  the  eyes,  Augustine  (In  Ev. 
Joh.,  Tract.  2)  finds  a striking  analogy  with  the  healing  of  flesh,  our  flesh  through 
Christ’s  flesh:  Gloriam  ejus  nemo  posset  videre,  nisi  carnis  humilitate  sanaretur. 
Unde  non  poteramus  videre  ? Irruerat  homini  quasi  pulvis  in  oculum,  irruerat  terra, 
sauciaverat  oculum,  videre  non  poterat  lucem : oculus  ille  sauciatus  inunguitur ; 
terra  sauciatus  erat,  et  terra  illuc  mittitur,  ut  sanetur  . . . De  pulvere  coecatus  es, 
de  pulvere  sanaris : ergo  caro  te  ccecaverat,  caro  te  sanat.  See  the  meaning  of  the 
use  of  this  means  for  restoration,  which  Irenseus,  1.  5,  c.  15,  finds. 


OF  ONE  BOKN  BLIND. 


239 


had,  it  at  any  rate  served  as  a proof,  however  slight  a one,  of  the  man’s 
faith, .that  he  willingly  went  as  he  was  bidden. 

It  must  further  be  asked,  Did  St.  John  trace  something  significant 
and  mystical  in  the  etymology  of  Siloam  that  he  should  introduce  it 
here 1 — “ which  is  by  interpretation  Sent”  It  is  scarcely  probable  that 
he  did  not  acknowledge  some  allusion  in  the  name  to  the  present  fact, 
or  some  prophecy  of  Christ’s  great  work  of  healing  and  washing ; for 
had  he  not  done  so,  it  is  little  likely  that  he  would  have  brought  in  the 
derivation,  which,  if  it  had  possessed  no  religious  significance,  might 
have  been  appropriate  enough  in  a lexicon,  but  one  would  scarcely  expect 
to  meet  in  a gospel. 

Olshausen  dissents  from  Tholuck,  who  finds  in  this  “sent”  a refe- 
rence to  Christ  himself,  on  the  ground  that  upon  the  present  occasion 
the  Lord  was  not  the  “ Sent”  but  the  sender.  Yet  might  there  well  be 
allusion  here  in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist,  not  to  this  particular 
healing,  in  which  it  is  true  he  is  rather  sender  than  sent,  but  to  the 
whole  work  of  his  ministry,  which  was  a mission  * which  he  ever  cha- 
racterizes as  a work  whereto  he  was  the  sent  of  God,  (J ohn  vii.  29 ; 
viii.  42  ;)  so  that  he  bears  this  very  title,  “ the  Apostle  of  our  profes- 
sion.” (Heb.  iii.  1.)  These  waters  of  Siloam,  in  which  the  blind  man 
washed  and  was  illuminated,  may  well  have  been  to  the  Evangelist  the 
image  of  the  waters  of  baptism,  or  indeed  of  the  whole  cleansing  work 
of  a commissioned  Saviour  for  the  opening  the  eyes  of  the  spiritually 
blind ; and  the  very  name  which  the  pool  bore  may  have  had  in  his  eyes 
a-  fitness,  which  by  this  notice  he  would  indicate  as  more  than  accidental. 

The  man  was  obedient  to  the  word  of  the  Lord ; “ He  went  his  way 
therefore , and  washed , and  came  seeing returned,  that  is,  according 
to  all  appearance,  to  his  own  house ; it  does  not  seem  that  he  came 
back  to  the  Lord.  His  friends  and  neighbors  are  the  first  who  take 
note  of  the  thing  wdiich  has  been  done ; wrell-disposed  persons,  as  would 
appear,  but  altogether  under  the  influence  of  the  Pharisees.  They 
winder,  debate  whether  it  is  indeed  he  whom  they  had  known  so  long ; 
for  the  opening  of  the  eyes  would  have  altered  the  whole  countenance ; 
being  convinced  that  it  is,  they  would  fain  learn  how  the  cure  was 

* Augustine  [Berm.  135,  c.  1) : Quis  est  ipse  Missus,  nisi  qui  dixit  in  ipsa  lectione, 
Ego,  inquit,  veni  ut  faciam  opera  ejus  qui  misit  me ; and  in  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  44 : Misit 
ilium  ad  piscinam  quae  vocatur  Siloe.  Pertinuit  autem  ad  Evangelistam  commendare 
nobis  nomen  hujus  piscinae,  et  ait,  Quod  interpretatur  Missus.  Jam  quis  sit  Missus 
agnoscitis  : nisi  enim  ille  fuisset  missus,  nemo  nostrum  esset  ab  iniquitate  dimissus. 
So  Chrysostom,  Horn.  51  in  Joh.  On  St.  Johns  derivation  of  Siloam,  see  Tholuck’s 
Beitrage  zur  Spracherklarung  des  N.  T.,  p.  123,  sq.,  -where  he  also  enters  into  the 
hard  question  of  its  position,  whether  at  the  east  or  west  side  of  the  city. 


240 


THE  OPEH1NG  THE  EYES 


effected,  and  see  him  who  had  wrought  it ; and  at  length,  as  the  safest 
course,  they  bring  the  man,  with  no  evil  dispositions  either  towards  him 
or  towards  Christ,  to  their  spiritual  rulers, — not,  that  is,  before  the  great 
Sanhedrim,  for  that  was  not  always  sitting,  but  the  lesser.  The  work 
may  have  seemed  questionable  to  them*,  especially  as  having  been 
wrought  on  the  Sabbath ; the  mention  just  at  this  place  of  the  day  on 
which  the  healing  was  accomplished  seems  inserted  as  the  explanation 
of  their  having  found  it  necessary  to  bring  the  case  before  their  eccle- 
siastical rulers,  “ the  Pharisees”  as  St.  John  calls  them;  not  that  the 
Sanhedrim  exclusively  consisted  of  these,  (for  Caiphas  was  a Sadducee, 
and  see  also  Acts  xxiii.  6 ;)  but  these  being  the  most  numerous  and 
influential  party  there,  and  the  bitterest  enemies  of  the  Lord. 

Here  there  was  a more  formal  examination  into  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  healing  had  taken  place,  and  the  man  again  told  his 
simple  tale : “ He  put  clay  on  my  eyes , and  I washed , and  do  see.”  Some 
of  the  Pharisees  present  seek  to  rob  the  miracle  of  its  significance,  by 
bringing  out  that  it  was  accomplished  on  the  Sabbath,*  so  that,  granting 
its  reality,  it  did  not  prove  any  thing  in  favor  of  him  that  wrought  it ; 
rather  was  it  to  be  inferred,  since  he  was  thus  an  evident  transgressor  of 
God’s  commandment,  that  he  was  in  connection  with  the  powers  of  evil. 
No  lighter  charge  than  that  which  they  made  at  another  time,  when  they 
said,  “ He  casteth  out  devils  through  the  prince  of  the  devils,”  (Matt, 
ix.  34,)  was  involved  in  this  word  of  theirs.  But  there  was  throughout 
all  these  events,  which  were  so  fatally  fixing  the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish 
people,  an  honester  and  a better  party  in  the  Sanhedrim,  of  which  Nico- 
demus  and  J oseph  of  Arimathea  were  the  noblest  representatives  ; men 
like  the  Poles  and  Contarinis  at  another  great  epoch  of  the  Church ; not 
in  number,  perhaps  less  in  courage,  equal  to  the  stemming  of  the  great 
tide  of  hostility  which  was  rising  against  the  truth, — a tide  which  proba- 
bly in  the  end  drew  most  even  of  them  into  its  current  (compare  John 
xii.  42,  43)  : only  here  and  there  one  and  another,  such  as  those  above- 
named,  extricating  themselves  from  it.  These  from  time  to  time  made 
their  voices  to  be  heard  in  the  cause  of  right  and  of  truth.  Thus,  on 
the  present  occasion,  did  they  at  the  first  claim  that  he  should  not  at  once 
be  adjudged  a sinner  and  a breaker  of  God’s  law,  who  had  done  such 
signs  as  these.  Even  their  own  Kabbis  were  not  altogether  at  one  con- 

* The  littleness  of  the  Rabbinical  casuistry  with  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
works  permitted  and  forbidden  on  that  day,  are  almost  inconceivable.  Thus  Light- 
foot  quotes  from  a treatise  on  this  subject : Vinum  in  medium  oculi  injici  [sabbato] 
prohibitum,  poni  super  palpebras  licitum.  Alter  dicit,  sputum  etiam  super  palpebras 
poni  prohibitum. 


OF  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 


241 


celling  what  was  permitted  oil  the  Sabbath,  and  what  not : some 
allowing  quite  as  much  as  this  and  more,  for  only  the  alleviation  of  dis- 
orders in  the  eyes.  Therefore  they  might  plead  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
might  well  have  directed  him  in  this  that  he  did,  and  they  ask,  “ How 
can  a man  that  is  a sinner  do  such  miracles  ?”  Yet  the  shape  which 
their  interference  takes,  the  form  of  a question  in  which  it  clothes  itself, 
is,  as  Chrysostom  remarks,  that  of  timid  and  irresolute  men,  who  dare 
only  to  hint  their  convictions.  No  wonder  that  they  should  be  in  the 
end  overborne  and  silenced  by  their  more  unscrupulous  adversaries, 
even  as  now  they  prove  unequal  to  the  obtaining  a fair  and  impartial 
hearing  of  the  matter. 

The  interrogation  in  the  verse  following,  “ What  sayest  thou  of  him, 
that  he  hath  opened  thine  eyes  ?”  has  been  frequently,  though  erroneously, 
understood,  not  as  one  question,  but  as  two.  The  mistake  is  a Very  old 
one,  for  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  finds  fault  with  them  who  divide  the 
question  here  into  two  clauses,  “ What  sayest  thou  of  him  ? That  he 
hath  opened  thine  eyes?’’’’  making  the  second  to  have  its  rise  in  the 
doubts  which  the  Pharisees  felt  or  pretended  to  feel  concerning  the 
reality  of  the  miracle.  In  truth  there  is  but  one  question,  “ What  say- 
est thou  of  him  in  that  he  hath  opened  thine  eyes?  what  conclusion 
drawest  thou  from  thence ?”  and  thus  the  answer  is  to  the  point,  “He 
said,  He  is  a prophet 'T* — not  yet  the  Son  of  God,  not  yet  the  Messiah; 
of  these  higher  dignities  of  his  benefactor  he  as  yet  has  no  guess,  but 
what  he  believes  him  he  boldly  declares  him,  “ a prophetf — one  fur- 
nished with  powers  and  a message  from  above.  When  they  asked  this, 
it  was  not  that  they  cared  in  the  least  for  the  judgment  of  the  man, 
but  they  hoped  to  mould  him  and  make  him  an  instrument  for  their 
own  wicked  purposes.  Chrysostom,  indeed,  whom  Theophylact  and 
Euthymius  follow,  makes  this  “ What  sayest  thou  of  him  ?”  the  speech 
of  the  better  disposed  in  the  Sanhedrim,  who  hope  that  the  testimony 
of  the  man  himself  may  go  for  something ; but  this  is  little  probable. 
They  would  fain  have  had  him  turn  against  his  benefactor,  and  they 
hoped  that,  seeing  what  would  be  welcome  to  them,  he  would  follow 
the  suggestions  which  they  had  thrown  out,  and  attribute  the  opening 
of  his  eyes  to  the  power  of  an  evil  magic.  But  a rare  courage  from 
above  is  given  to  him,  and  he  dares  in  the  face  of  these  formidable  men 
whom  he  is  making  his  foes,  to  avouch  his  belief  that  the  work  and  the 
doer  of  the  work  were  of  God. 

* Our  version  no  doubt  in  general  conveys  to  the  English  reader  the  wrong  im 
pression ; it  had  done  so  at  least  for  many  years  to  me.  Yet  the  manner  of  pointing) 
with  the  absence  of  the  second  note  of  interrogation,  shows  that  the  translators  had 
rightly  apprehended  the  passage. 


31 


242 


THE  OPENING-  THE  EYES 


They  now  summon  his  parents,  hoping  to  be  more  successful  in 
dealing  with  them.  Their  desire  is  to  get  a lie  from  them,  and  that 
they  should  say  their  son  had  not  been  born  blind.  But  neither  in  this 
quarter  do  they  find  any  help.  His  parents  make  answer  as  persons 
who  refuse  to  be  made  accomplices  in  a fraud,  although  without  any 
high  desire  to  witness  or  to  suffer  for  the  truth’s  sake ; on  the  contrary, 
there  is  something  of  selfishness  in  the1  manner  in  which  they  extricate 
themselves  from  the  difficulty,  leaving  their  son  in  it.  They  avail 
themselves  of  the  fact  that  he  was  of  full  age,  able  therefore  judicially 
to  answer  for  himself,  and  altogether  decline  to  enter  on  the  question  of 
how  his  sight  had  been  restored  to  him ; since  they  could  not  have  told 
the  truth  without  saying  something  that  should  have  been  to  the  honor 
of  Jesus, — and  so  they  would  have  come  under  the  penalties  which  the 
Sanhedrim  had  lately  declared  against  any  that  should  “ confess  that  he 
was  Christ.^  We  are  not  to  understand  by  this  that  the  Sanhedrim  had 
formally  declared  him  to  be  an  impostor,  a false  Christ,  but  only  that 
while  the  question  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  his  claims  to  be  the 
Messiah  was  not  yet  clear, — and  they,  the  great  religious  tribunal  of 
the  nation,  had  not  given  their  decision, — none  were  to  anticipate  that 
decision ; and  the  penalty  of  so  doing,  of  a premature  confession  of  him, 
was,  that  he  who  made  it  should  be  cast  out  of  the  synagogue, — that  is, 
should  be  excommunicated.  Now  there  appear  to  have  been  two,  or 
some  say  three,  kinds  of  excommunication  among  the  Jews,  greatly  dif- 
fering in  degrees  and  intensity,  and  our  Lord  often  alludes  to  them,  not 
as  though  they  were  a slight  matter,  but  as  among  the  sharpest  trials 
which  his  servants  would  have  to  endure  for  his  name’s  sake.  The 
mildest  was  an  exclusion  for  thirty  days  from  the  synagogue,  to  which 
period,  in  case  the  excommunicated  showed  no  sign  of  repentance,  a 
similar  or  a longer  period,  according  to  the  will  of  those  that  imposed 
the  sentence,  was  added : in  other  ways  too  it  was  made  keener ; it  was 
accompanied  with  a curse ; none  might  hold  communion  with  him  now, 
not  even  his  family,  except  in  cases  of  absolute  necessity.  Did  he 
show  himself  obstinate  still,  he  was  in  the  end  absolutely  separated 
from  the  fellowship  of  the  people  of  God,  cut  off  from  the  congregation, 
— a sentence  answering,  as  many  suppose,  to  the  delivering  to  Satan  in 
the  apostolic  Church.  (1  Cor.  v.  5 ; 1 Tim.  i.  20.)* 


* Our  Lord  is  thought  to  allude  to  all  these  three  degrees  of  separation,  Luke  vi. 
22,  expressing  the  lightest  by  the  aQoplfriv,  the  severer  by  the  oveidtfciv,  and  the 
severest  of  all  by  the  htjiaXheiv.  Yet  after  all  it  is  doubtful  whether  these  different 
grades  of  excommunication  were  so  accurately  distinguished  in  our  Lord’s  time. 
(See  Winer’s  Real  Worterbuch , s.  v.  Bann,  and  Yitringa,  Be  Synagogd,  p.  738.) 


OF  05E  BORN  BLIND. 


243 


The  man  had  been  removed,  while  his  parents  were  being  examined. 
The  Pharisees  now  summon  him  again,  and  evidently  by  their  address 
would  have  him  to  believe  that  they  had  gotten  to  the  root  of  all,  and 
discovered  the  whole  fraud,  so  that  any  longer  persisting  in  it  would  be 
idle.  They  are  as  men  seeking  to  obtain  confession  from  one  they  sus- 
pect, by  assuring  him  that  others  have  confessed,  and  so  that  for  him 
to  stand  out  in  denying,  will  only  make  matters  worse  for  him  in  the  end. 
Now  we  know,  they  would  say,  that  it  is  all  a collusion ; we  have  indu- 
bitable proofs  of  it ; do  thou  also  give  glory  to  God,  and  acknowledge 
that  it  is  so.  Our  “ Give  God  the  praise”  sets  the  reader  of  this  passage 
quite  upon  a wrong  track.  The  Pharisees  do  not  mean,  “ Give  the  glory 
of  your  cure  to  God,  and  not  to  this  sinful  man,  who  in  truth  could  have 
contributed  nothing  to  it, — attempting,”  in  Hammond’s  words,  “ to  draw 
him  from  that  opinion  of  Christ  which  he  seemed  to  have,  by  bidding 
him  to  ascribe  the  praise  of  his  cure  wholly  to  God,  and  not  to  look  on 
Christ  with  any  veneration.”  So  indeed  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  his  sermon, 
On  the  return  of  prayers  ; “ The  spiteful  Pharisees  bid  him  give  glory  to 
God,  and  defy  the  minister ; for  God  indeed  was  good,  but  he  wrought 
that  cure  by  a wicked  hand.”  But  this  cannot  be  their  meaning ; for 
they  did  not  allow  that  any  cure  had  taken  place  at  all,  on  the  contrary, 
professed  to  believe  that  it  was  all  a fraud,  gotten  up  between  Christ 
and  the  man  who  was  before  them.  The  words  are  rather  an  adjuration 
to  him  that  he  should  speak  the  truth.*  Hitherto  he  has  been  acting  as 
though  he  could  deceive  not  merely  men  but  God,  but  now  let  him 
honor  God,  give  glory  to  him  in  uttering  that  which  is  truth  before  him, 
showing  so  that  he  believes  him  to  be  a God  of  truth  and  righteousness 
and  power,  whom  no  lie  will  escape,  and  who  will  be  the  avenger  of  all 
ungodliness  of  men.f  And  then  in  proof  they  add,  “ We  know  that  this 
man  is  a sinner , a more  than  ordinary  transgressor,  one  therefore  to 
whom  least  of  all  would  God  have  given  this  higher  power;-  your  story 
then  cannot  be  true ; we  that  have  the  best  means  for  knowing,  know 
this.”  They  will  overbear  him  with  the  authority  of  their  place  and 
station,  and  with  their  confident  assertion. 


* A comparison  with  Josh.  vii.  19,  where  Joshua,  urging  Achan  to  confess,  uses 
exactly  the  same  language,  “ My  son,  give,  I pray  thee,  glory  to  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel,  and  make  confession  unto  him,”  shows  this  to  be  the  meaning.  The  phrase  is 
often  used  more  generally  as  an  adjuration  to  repentance  of  every  kind,  which  is 
indeed  in  the  highest  sense  a taking  shame  to  ourselves,  and  in  that  a giving  glory 
only  to  God.  (1  Sam.  vi.  5 ; Jer.  xiii.  16  ; 1 Esdr.  ix.  8 ; Rev.  xvi.  9.) 

f Seneca,  {Ep.  95)  speaks  very  nobly  of  this  giving  glory  to  God,  as  the  great 
work  of  every  man : Primus  est  Deorum  cultus,  Deos  credere : deinde  reddere  illia 
majestatem  suam,  reddere  bonitatem,  sine  qua  nulla  majestas  est. 


244 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES 


The  man  whom  we  recognize  throughout  as  a ready-witted,  brave, 
and  genial  man,  declines  altogether  to  enter  on  the  question  whether  his 
Healer  was  this  “ sinner ” or  not ; yet,  as  Chrysostom  observes,  does  not 
in  the  least  admit  by  his  answer  the  alternative  that  he  was  so.  This 
is  a matter  which  he  knows  not ; he  will  speak,  however,  the  thing 
which  he  does  know,  and  will  let  them  draw  their  own  conclusions ; 
and  that  which  he  does  know  is,  that  he  was  blind  and  now  he  is  seeing. 
They  perceive  that  they  can  gain  nothing  in  this  way,  and  they  require 
him  to  tell  over  again  the  manner  of  his  cure,  hoping  either  to  detect 
some  contradictions  in  his  story,  or  to  find  something  which  they  can 
better  lay  hold  of,  and  wrest  into  a charge  against  Christ ; or  perhaps 
utterly  perplexed  how  to  escape  from  their  present  entanglement,  they 
ask  for  this  repetition  to  gain  time,  and  in  the  hope  that  some  light 
may  break  upon  them  presently. 

But  the  man  has  grown  weary  of  the  examinations  to  which  his  in- 
quisitors are  now  submitting  him  anew,  and  there  is  something  of  defi- 
ance in  his  answer:  “To  what  purpose  to  tell  it  all  over  to  you  again'? 
I have  told  you  already , and  ye  did  not  hear : wherefore  would  ye  hear  it 
again  And  then,  with  an  evident  irony,  “ Will  ye  also * be  his  disci- 
ples It  is  clear  that  these  words  cut  them  to  the  quick,  though  it  is 
not  so  clear  what  exactly  is  the  taunt  conveyed  by  them.  Is  it  this1? 
“ How  idle  to  tell  you  over  again,  when  there  is  that  deep-rooted  enmity 
in  your  hearts  against  this  man,  that,  though  convinced  a hundred 
times,  you  would  yet  never  acknowledge  it,  or  sit  as  learners  at  his 
feet.f  Will  ye  also  become  his  disciples  1 I trow  not.”  This  is  the 
commonest  explanation  of  the  words,  yet  it  agrees  not  perfectly  with 
their  reply,  which  is  an  earnest  repelling  the  indignity  of  being,  or 
meaning  to  be,  disciples  of  his.  But  according  to  that  common  view  of 
the  man’s  words,  he  could  not  have  accused  them  of  any  such  inten- 
tion; on  the  contrary,  his  charge  was,  that  no  evidence,  no  force  of 
truth,  could  win  them  to  be  such.  It  seems  therefore  better  to  suppose 
that  the  man,  in  this  last  clause  of  his  answer,  affects  to  misunderstand 
their  purpose  in  asking  a repetition  of  his  story.  “ Is  it  then,  indeed, 
that  the  truth  is  winning  you  also  to  its  side,  so  that  you  too  wish  now 
to  find  my  story  true,  and  yourselves  to  acknowledge  this  man  for  your 
master  V9  Then  the  answer  of  the  Pharisees  will  exactly  agree.  No- 
thing could  have  been  more  stinging  to  them  than  the  bare  supposition 

* In  the  Kal  vysig  of  the  man  there  lies,  as  Chrysostom  has  observed,  a confession 
that  he  was,  or  intended  to  be,  a follower  of  this  prophet.  Bengel:  Jucunde  obser 
vari  potest  fides  apud  hunchominem,  dum  Pharissei  contradicunt,  paullatim  exoriens 

f Calvin : Significat  quamvis  centies  convicti  fuerint,  maligno  hostilique  affectu 
-tic  esse  occupatos  ut  nunquam  cessuri  siat. 


OF  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 


245 


of  such  a discipleship  on  their  part : “ They  reviled  him  and  said , Thou 
art  his  disciple , but  we  are  Moses ’ disciples .”  They  set,  as  was  their 
wont,  Moses  against  Christ,  and  contrast  their  claims.  “ We  know  that 
God  spake  unto  Moses  ; we  know  that  he  had  a commission  and  an  au- 
thority ; but  as  for  this  fellow, we  know  not  whence  he  is;  all  is  uncertain 
about  him : there  is  no  proof  that  God  has  given  him  a commission  ; we 
know  not  whether  he  be  from  above  or  from  beneath.” 

This  confession  of  their  inability  to  explain  this  new  and  wonderful 
appearance,  this  acknowledgment  that  they  were  at  fault,  emboldens 
the  man  yet  further ; they  had  left  a blot,  and  this  plain  yet  quick- 
witted man  does  not  fail  to  take  instant  advantage  of  it.  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  miss  an  irony  keener  yet  than  the  last  in  his  retort : “ But  this  at 
least  is  wonderful ; here  is  one  who  has  opened  mine  eyes,  who  is  evi- 
dently so  clothed  with  powers  mightier  than  man’s,  as  to  be  able  to  do 
this  miracle ; and  you,  the  spiritual  rulers  of  our  nation,  you  that  should 
try  the  spirits,  that  should  be  able  to  tell  of  each  new  appearance 
whether  it  be  of  God  or  not,  here  acknowledge  your  ignorance,  and  can- 
not tell  of  this  man  whence  he  is,  whether  of  earth  or  of  heaven.*  But  I 
know,  for  you  have  yourselves  declared  it,  (see  ver.  24,)  that  God  heareth 
not  sinners  ; but  he  hath  heard  this  man, — he  hath  enabled  him  to  do  a 
work  without  parallel ; therefore  I know  whence  he  is ; he  is  of  God ; 
for  were  he  not,  he  could  do  none  of  the  things  which  he  has  done.” 

It  is  interesting  here  to  observe  how  his  faith  and  insight  and  cour- 
age had  grown  during  this  very  examination.  He  who  had  said  a little 
while  before,  “ Whether  he  be  a sinner  or  no,  I know  not”  (ver.  25,) 
avoiding  the  answer,  now  says  boldly,  “ We  know  that  God  heareth  not 
sinners .”  Nor  need  we  take  exception,  as  many  have  done,  at  his 
maxim,  “God  heareth  not  sinners ,”  nor  bring  out,  as  they  have  thought 
it  needful  to  do,  that  these  words  have  no  Scriptural  authority,!  being 

* Compare  our  Lord’s  question  to  his  adversaries,  Matt.  xxi.  25: “The  baptism 
of  John  whence  was  it  ? (koOev  rjv  ;)  from  heaven  or  of  men  ?”  which  best  explains 
the  t -odev  ( = ev  tt ola  h^ovaia,  ver.  24)  here.  In  the  same  way  Pilate’s  question  to 
our  Lord,  “ Whence  art  thou  ?”  (John  xix.  9,)  is  to  be  explained : “ To  what  world 
dost  thou  belong  ?” 

| Thus  Origen  {in  Isai.,  Horn.  5) : Peccatores  exaudit  Deus.  Quod  si  timetis  illud 
quod  in  Evangelio  dicitur ; Scimus  quia  peccatores  non  exaudiat  Deus,  nolite  perti- 
mescere,  nolite  credere.  Coecus  erat  qui  hoc  dixit.  Magia  autem  credite  ei  qui  dicit, 
et  non  mentitur,  Etsi  fuerint  peccata  vestra  ut  coccinum,  ut  lanam  dealbabo.  Au- 
gustine ( Serm . 136):  Si  peccatores  Deus  non  exaudit,  quam  spem  habemus?  Si 
peccatores  Deus  non  exaudit,  ut  quid  oramus  et  testimonium  peccati  nostri  tunsione 
pectoris  dicimus.  He  alludes  to  Luke  xviii.  10,  and  proceeds:  Certe  peccatores  Deus 
exaudit.  Sed  ille  qui  ista  dixit,  nondum  laverat  faciem  cordis  de  Silod.  In  oculis  ejus 
prsecesserat  sacramenturr.  • sed  in  corde  nondum  erat  effectual  gratis  beneficium. 


246 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES 


words  neither  of  Christ  nor  of  one  of  his  inspired  servants,  but  only  of  a 
man  not  wholly  enlightened  yet,  in  whose  mind  truth  and  error  were 
yet  mingled  together.  That  the  words  have  not  in  themselves  any  au- 
thority is  most  true ; yet  they  may  well  be  allowed  to  stand,  and  in  the 
intention  in  which  the  speaker  used  them.  Tor  the  term  “ sinner”  has  a 
two-fold  meaning  in  Scripture : sometimes  it  is  applied  to  all  men  as  they 
are  fallen  children  of  Adam,  and  each  one  with  the  burden  of  his  own  sin 
upon  him.  If,  taking  the  word  in  this  sense,  it  were  said,  “ God  heareth 
not  sinners ,”  this  were  indeed  to  say,  God  heareth  not  any  man ; or  if 
by  “ sinners ” were  understood  those  who  have  been  in  time  past  more 
than  ordinary  transgressors,  and  it  were  said  that  they  will  not  now  be 
heard,  though  they  truly  turn,  this  were  indeed  an  impeaching  of  the 
grace  of  God.  But  the  Scripture  knows  another  and  emphatic  use  of 
the  term  “ sinners ,” — men  in  their  sins , and  not  desiring  to  be  delivered 
out  of  them ; and  in  this  sense,  which  is  the  sense  of  the  speaker  here, 
as  of  the  better  among  the  Pharisees,  who  a little  earlier  in  the  day  had 
said,  41 How  can  a man  that  is  a sinner  do  such  miracles  f”  (ver.  16,  cf. 
x.  21,)  it  is  most  true  that  God  does  not  hear  sinners  ; their  prayer  is  an 
abomination,  and  even  if  they  ask,  they  obtain  not  their  petitions.*  (Isai. 
i.  15;  lix.  1,  2;  Prov.  i.  28;  xv.  8;  xxviii.  9;  Ps.  1.  16;  lxvi.  18; 
cix.  7 ; Job  xxvii.  9;  xxxv.  13;  Jer.  xiv.  12;  Mic.  iii.  4.) 

But  this  was  what  least  of  all  they  could  endure,  that  the  whole  re- 
lations between  themselves  and  this  man  should  thus  be  reversed, — that 
he  should  thus  be  their  teacher ; and  while  it  was  now  plain  that  no- 


Quando  lavit  faciem  cordis  sui  coecus  iste  ? Quando  eum  Dominus  foras  missum  a 
Judseis,  intromisit  ad  se.  Cf.  Serm.  135,  c.  5.  Elsewhere  (Con.  Lit.  Parmen .,  1.  2,  c. 
8)  he  shows  that  his  main  desire  is  thus  to  rescue  the  passage  from  Donatist  abuses. 
These  last,  true  to  their  plan  of  making  the  sacraments  and  other  blessings  of  the 
Church  to  rest  on  the  subjective  sanctity  of  those  through  whose  hands  they  passed, 
and  not  on  the  sure  promise  of  him  from  whose  hands  they  came,  quoted  this  pas- 
sage in  proof : “ Cod  heareth  not  sinners  how  then  can  they  minister  blessings  to 
others  ? It  would  be  enough  to  answer  that  it  is  not  them  whom  God  hears,  but  the 
Church  which  speaks  through  them.  And  because  of  this  abusive  application  of  the 
words,  it  needed  not  to  make  exception  against  the  statement  itself,  as  though  it 
smacked  of  errors  from  which  the  man  was  not  yet  wholly  delivered.  But  Calvin 
• better;  Falluntur  qui  ccecum  ex  vulgi  opinione  sic  loquutum  esse  putant.  Nam 
peccator  hie  quoque  ut  paulo  ante  impium  et  sceleratum  significat.  (ver.  24.)  Est 
autem  haec  perpetua  Scripturse  doctrina,  quod  Deus  non  exaudiat  nisi  a quibus  ver£ 
et  sincero  corde  vocatur  . . . Ideo  non  male  ratiocinatur  coecus,  Christum  a Deo 
profectum  esse,  quern  suis  votis  ita  propitium  habet. 

* The  words  are  so  true  that  Jeremy  Taylor  has  made  them  the  text  of  three 
among  his  noblest  sermons,  entitled  The  return  of  Prayers  ; or,  The  conditions  of  a 
prevailing  prayer. 


OF  ONE  BORN  BLIND. 


247 


thing  could  be  done  with  him,  that  he  could  neither  be  seduced  nor  ter- 
rified from  his  simple  yet  bold  avowal  of  the  truth,  their  hatred  and 
scorn  break  forth  without  any  restraint : “ Thou  wast  altogether  born  in 
sin , and  dost  thou  teach  us  f” — “ altogether ,”  not  imperfect  in  body  only, 
but,  as  they  now  perceive,  maimed  and  deformed  in  soul  also.*  “Thou 
that  comest  forth  from  thy  mother’s  womb  with  the  note  of  thy  wicked- 
ness upon  thee,  dost  thou  school  us  % dost  thou  presume  to  meddle  and 
be  a judge  in  such  matters  as  these  1 And  they  cast  him  out” — which 
does  not  merely  mean,  as  some  explain  it,  (Chrysostom,  Maldonatus, 
Grotius,  Tholuck,)  rudely  flung  him  forth  from  the  hall  of  judgment, 
wherever  that  may  have  been ; but,  according  to  the  decree  which  had 
gone  before,  they  declared  him  to  have  come  under  those  sharp  spiritual 
censures  which  they  had  threatened  against  any  that  should  join  them- 
selves unto  the  Lord.  Only  so  the  act  would  have  the  importance 
which  (ver.  35)  is  attached  to  it.  No  doubt  the  sign  and  initial  act  of 
this  excommunication  was  the  thrusting  him  forth  and  separating  him 
as  unclean  from  their  own  company  ;|  and  so  that  other  explanation  of 
the  passage  has  its  relative  truth.];  Yet  this  was  not  all,  or  nearly  all, 
which  was  involved  in  these  words,  “ They  cast  him  out. ” This  violent 
putting  of  him  out  of  the  hall  of  audience,  was  only  the  beginning  of  the 
things  which  he  should  suffer  for  Christ’s  sake. 

But  in  him  were  to  be  fulfilled  in  a very  eminent  sense  those  words, 
“ Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  hate  you,  and  when  they  shall  separate 
you  from  their  company,  and.  shall  reproach  you  and  cast  out  your 
name  as  evil,  for  the  Son  of  man’s  sake.”  (Luke  vi.  22.)  He  is  cast 
out  from  the  meaner  fellowship,  to  be  received  into  the  higher, — from 
that  which  was  about  to  vanish  away,  to  be  received  into  a kingdom  not 
to  be  moved, — from  the  synagogue  to  the  Church:  the  Jews  cast  him 
out,  and  Christ  received  him:  “When  my  father  and  my  mother  forsake 
me,  the  Lord  taketh  me  up.”  (Ps.  xxvii.  12.)  He  has  not  been  ashamed 
of  Christ,  and  now  Christ  reveals  himself  unto  him  as  he  had  not  done 
before : no  longer  as  the  prophet  from  God,  for  to  this  only  his  faith  had 
riitherto  reached,  but  as  the  Son  of  God  himself.  Thus,  “ to  him  that 


* Bengel : Exprobrant  de  ccecitate  pristina.  Calvin ; Perinde  illi  insultaut,  acsi 
ab  utero  matris  cum  scelerum  suorum  nota  prodiisset.  It  is  characteristic  enough 
that  they  forget  that  the  two  charges,  one  that  he  had  never  been  blind,  and  so  was 
an  impostor, — the  other  that  he  bore  the  mark  of  God’s  anger  in  a blindness  which 
reached  back  to  his  birth, — will  not  agree  together. 

f Corn,  a Lapide : Utrumque  eos  fecisse  est  credibile,  scilicet  coecum  ex  domo,  et 
hoc  symbolo  ex  Ecclesia  sua,  ejecisse.  ’EnfiakleLv  will  then  have  the  technical  mean- 
ing which  it  afterwards  retained  in  the  Church.  (See  Suicek’s  Thes.,  s.  v.) 

| See  VitriXga,  De  Synagogd,  p.  743. 


248 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES 


hath  is  given,5’  and  he  ascends  from  faith  to  faith.  “ Jesus  heard  that 
they  had  cast  him  out”  and,  himself  the  Good  Shepherd,  went  in  search 
of  this  sheep  in  this  favorable  hour  for  bringing  him  home  to  the  true 
fold ; — “ and  when  he  had  found  himf  encountered  him,  it  may  be,  in  the 
temple,  (cf.  John  v.  14,)  “ he  said  unto  him , Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son 
of  God?”  The  man  knows  what  the  title  means,  that  it  is  equivalent 
to  Messiah,  but  he  knows  not  any  one  who  has  a right  to  claim  it  for  his 
own : such  trust,  however,  has  he  in  his  Healer,  that  whomsoever  he 
will  point  out  to  him  as  such,  he  will  recognize.  “He  answered  and  said 
unto  him , Who  is  he , Lord,  that  I might  believe  on  him  ? And  Jesus  said 
unto  him , Thou  hast  both  seen  him , and  it  is  he  that  talketh  with  thee.” 
These  words,  “ Thou  hast  seen  him,”  do  not  refer  to  some  anterior  see- 
ing— for  it  does  not  appear  that  the  man  after  his  eyes  were  opened  at 
the  pool,  returned  to  the  Lord,  or  that  he  had  enjoyed  any  opportunity 
of  seeing  him  since.  This  past  then  is  in  some  sense  a present : “ Thou 
hast  seen  him  already ; this  seeing  is  not  something  yet  to  do ; ever  since 
thou  hast  been  speaking  with  me  thine  eyes  have  beheld  him,  for  it  is  no 
other  than  he  himself  that  talketh  with  thee.”  * 

And  now  that  to  which  all  that  went  before  was  but  an  introduction, 
has  arrived;  “He  said , Lord , / believe;  and  he  worshipped  him:”  not 
that  even  now  we  need  suppose  that  he  knew  all  that  was  contained  in 
that  title,  Son  of  God, — or  that  in  this  worshipping  him  we  are  to  un- 
derstand the  very  highest  act  of  adoration  as  unto  God.  For  the  fact 
of  “ God  manifest  in  the  flesh,”  is  far  too  great  a one  for  any  man  to 
receive  at  once : the  minds,  even  of  apostles,  could  only  dilate  little  by 
little  to  receive  it.  There  were,  however,  in  this  man  the  preparations 
for  that  ultimate  and  crowning  faith : the  seeds  which  would  unfold  into 
it  were  safely  laid  in  his  heart ; and  he  fell  down  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  as 
of  one  more  than  man,  with  a deep  religious  reverence  and  fear  and 
awe.  And  thus  the  faith  of  this  poor  man  was  accomplished ; step  by 
step  he  had  advanced,  following  faithfully  the  light  which  was  given 
him ; undeterred  by  opposition  which  would  have  been  fatal  to  a weaker 
faith,  and  must  have  been  so  to  his,  unless  the  good  seed  had  cast  its 
roots  in  a soil  of  more  than  ordinary  depth.  But  because  it  was  such 
a soil,  therefore,  when  persecution  arose,  as  it  soon  did,  for  the  Word’s 
sake,  he  was  not  offended ; (Matt.  xiii.  21 ;)  but  endured,  until  at  length 
the  highest  grace  was  vouchsafed  to  him,  to  know  the  only -begotten  Son 
of  God,  however  yet  he  may  not  have  seen  all  the  glorious  treasures 
that  were  contained  in  the  knowledge  of  him. 

So  wonderful  was  the  whole  event,  so  had  it  brought  out  tne  spiritual 


Corn,  a Lapide : Et  vidisti  eum,  nunc  cum  se  tibi  ipse  videndum  offert 


OF  ONE  BOKN  BLIND. 


249 


blindness  of  those  that  ought  to  have  been  the  seers  of  the  nation,  so  had 
it  ended  in  the  illumination,  spiritual  as  well  as  bodily,  of  one  who 
seemed  among  the  blind,  that  it  called  out  from  the  Saviour’s  lips  those 
remarkable  words  in  which  he  moralized  the  whole : “ For  judgment  I 
am  come  into  this  world , that  they  which  see  not  might  see , and  that  they 
which  see  might  be  made  blind:  I am  come  to  reveal  every  man’s  inner- 
most state ; I,  as  the  highest  revelation  of  God,  must  bring  out  men’s 
love  and  their  hatred  of  what  is  divine  as  none  other  could  : (John  iii. 
19 — 21  :)  I am  the  touchstone  ; much  that  seemed  true  shall  at  my  touch 
be  proved  false,  to  be  merely  dross ; much  that  for  its  little  sightliness 
was  nothing  accounted  of,  shall  prove  true  metal:  many,  whom  men 
esteemed  to  be  seeing,  such  as  the  spiritual  chiefs  of  this  nation,  shall  be 
shown  to  be  blind  : many,  whom  men  counted  altogether  unenlightened, 
shall,  when  my  light  touches  them,  be  shown  to  havo  powers  of  spirit- 
ual vision  undreamt  of  before.”  Christ  was  the  King  of  truth, — and 
therefore,  his  open  setting  up  of  his  banner  in  the  world  was  at  once  and 
of  necessity  a ranging  of  men  in  their  true  ranks,  as  lovers  of  truth  or 
lovers  of  a lie  ;*  and  he  is  here  saying  of  himself  the  same  thing  which 
Simeon  had  said  of  him  before : “ Behold,  this  child  is  set  for  the  fall 
and  rising  again  of  many  in  Israel  ....  that  the  thoughts  of  many 
hearts  may  be  revealed .”  (Luke  ii.  34,  35.)  He  is  the  stone  on  which 
men  build,  and  against  which  men  stumble, — and  set  for  either  purpose. 
(1  Pet.  ii.  6 — 8 ; cf.  2 Cor.  ii.  16.)  These  words  call  out  a further 
contradiction  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees,  and  out  of  this  miracle  un- 
folds itself  that  discourse  which  reaches  down  to  ver.  21  of  the  ensuing 
chapter.  They  had  shown  what  manner  of  shepherds  of  the  sheep  they 
were  in  their  exclusion  of  this  one  from  the  fold : “ with  force  and 
with  cruelty  have  ye  ruled  them,”  (Ezek.  xxxiv.  4:)f  our  Lord  sets 
over  against  them  himself,  the  good  Shepherd  and  the  true. 

* Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract  44) : Dies  ille  diviserat  inter  lucem  et  tenebras. 

f This  whole  chapter  of  Ezekiel  may  be  profitably  read  in  the  light  of  the  con- 
nection between  these  9th  and  10th  chapters  of  St.  John. 

& 


XIX. 

THE  RESTORING  OF  THE  MAN  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 

Matt.  xii.  9 — 13  ; Mark  iii.  1 — 5 ; Luke  vi.  6 — 11. 

This  is  not  the  first  of  our  Lord’s  sabbathic  cures,*  which  stirs  the  ill- 
will  of  his  adversaries,  or  is  used  by  them  as  a pretext  for  accusing 
him ; for  we  saw  the  same  to  occur  in  the  case  of  the  miracle  immedi- 
ately preceding ; yet  I have  reserved  for  this  the  considering  once  for 
all  the  position  which  our  Lord  himself  took  in  respect  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  and  the  light  in  which  he  regarded  it.  The  present  is  the  most 
favorable  occasion  which  will  occur,  since  here,  and  in  the  discourse 
which  immediately  precedes  this  miracle,  and  which  stands,  if  not  quite 
in  such  close  historic  connection  as  might  at  first  sight  appear  on  reading 
it  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  yet  in  closest  inner  relation  to  it,  our 
Lord  himself  enters  upon  the  subject,  and  delivers  the  weightiest  words 
which  upon  this  matter  fell  from  his  lips.  To  go  back  then  to  that  pre- 
ceding discourse,  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it; — the 
Pharisees  found  fault  with  the  disciples  for  plucking  ears  of  corn  and 
eating  them  upon  the  Sabbath ; they  accused  them  to  their  Master  as 
transgressors  of  the  law : “ Behold,  why  do  they  on  the  Sabbath  day 
that  which  is  not  lawful  Vf  It  was  not  the  thing  itself,  as  though  it  had 

* The  cures  on  the  Sabbath  actually  recorded  are  seven  in  number,  and  are  the 
following : — that  of  the  demoniac  in  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  (Mark  i.  21 ;) 
that  of  Simon’s  wife’s  mother,  (Mark  i.  29  ;)  of  the  impotent  man  of  Bethesda,  (John 
v.  9 ;)  of  this  man  with  a withered  hand ; of  the  man  born  blind,  (John  ix.  14 ;)  of  the 
woman  with  a spirit  of  infirmity,  (Luke  xiii.  14 ;)  of  the  man  who  had  a dropsy, 
(Luke  xiv.  1.)  We  have  a general  intimation  of  many  more,  as  at  Mark  i.  34.  and 
have  already  observed  that  the  “ one  work”  to  which  our  Lord  alludes,  at  John  vii. 
21 — 23,  is  perhaps  not  any  of  the  miracles  which  he  has  recorded  at  length,  but  one 
to  which  we  have  no  further  allusion  than  that  contained  in  these  verses. 


THE  MAH  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 


251 


been  an  invasion  of  other  men’s  property,  for  that  was  by  the  law  itself 
expressly  permitted  ;*  they  might  not  thrust  in  a sickle  to  another  man’s 
field,  but  might  pluck  the  ripe  ears  for  the  stilling  of  their  present 
hunger.  (Deut.  xxiii.  25.)  By  restrictions  upon  an  absolute  proprie- 
torship, even  slight  as  this,  did  God  assert  that  he  was  indeed  the  true 
proprietor  of  all  the  land,  and  that  the  holders  held  it  only  of  him.  It 
was  in  the  day  on  which  they  plucked  these  ears  that  their  fault 
consisted. 

Our  Lord  seeks  to  raise  the  objectors  to  a truer  standing  point 
from  which  to  contemplate  the  act  of  his  disciples ; and  by  two  ex- 
amples, and  these  taken  from  that  very  law  which  they  believed  they 
were  asserting,  would  show  them  how  the  law,  if  it  is  not  to  work 
mischievously,  must  be  spiritually  handled  and  understood.  These 
examples  are  borrowed,  the  one  from  the  Old  Testament  history,  the 
other  from  the  service  of  the  temple  which  was  evermore  going  ori  before 
their  eyes.  The  first,  the  well-known  event  which  occurred  during 
David’s  flight  from  Saul,  (1  Sam.  xxi.  1 — 6,)  his  claiming  and  obtain- 
ing from  the  high  priest  the  holy  bread,  was  such  as  would  naturally 
carry  much  weight  with  them  whom  Christ  was  seeking  to  convince, 
David  being  counted  the  great  pattern  and  example  of  Old  Testament 
holiness;  “Will  ye  affirm  that  they  did  wrong, — David  who  in  that 
necessity  claimed,  or  the  priest  who  gave  to  him,  the  holy  bread?” 
The  second  example  came  yet  nearer  home  to  them  with  whom  he  was 
speaking,  and  was  more  stringent  still,  for  it  was  not  an  exceptional  case, 
but  grounded  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  Levitical  service : “Ye  do 
yourselves  practically  acknowledge  it  right  that  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
should  give  place  to  a higher  interest,  to  the  service  of  the  temple ; 
that,  as  the  lesser,  it  should  be  subordinated,  and,  where  needful, 
offered  up  to  this  as  the  greater : the  sacrifices,  with  all  the  laborious 
preparations  which  they  require,  do  not  cease  upon  the  Sabbath ; 
(Num.  xxviii.  8,  9 ;)  all  which  is  needful  for  completing  them,  is  upon 
that  day  carried  through:  yet  no  one  accounts  the  priests  to  be  there- 
fore in  any  true  sense  profaners  of  that  holy  day ; f rather  would  they 
be  so,  if  they  did  not  do  these  things. 

* See  Robinson’s  J Researches,  v.  2,  p.  192. 

f They  had  themselves  a maxim  which  expressed  this  very  thing  : Ministerium 
pellit  Sabbatum. 

X It  is  the  same  argument  which  he  pursues,  John  vii.  22,  23.  There  he  says, 
“ For  the  sake  of  circumcision  you  do  yourselves  violate  the  Sabbath.  Rather  than 
not  keep  Moses’  commandment,  which  requires  the  child  to  be  circumcised  upon  the 
eighth  day,  you  will,  if  that  <^ay  fall  upon  a Sabbath,  accomplish  all  the  work  of 
circumcision  upon  that.  You  make,  that  is,  the  Sabbath,  which  is  lower,  give  place 


252 


THE  RESTORING-  OF  THE 


And  then,  lest  the  Pharisees  should  retort,  or  in  their  hearts  make 
exception,  that  the  work  referred  to  was  done  in  the  service  of  the 
temple,  and  was  therefore  permitted ; hut  that  here  there  was  no  such 
serving  of  higher  interests,  he  adds,  “ But  I say  unto  you,  that  in  this 
place  is  one  greater  than  the  temple one  whom  therefore,  by  still 
better  right,  his  servants  might  serve  and  be  guiltless.*  He  contem- 
plates his  disciples  as  already  the  priests  of  the  New  Covenant,  of  which 
tie  is  himself  the  living  Temple,  f It  was  in  their  needful  service  and 
ministration  to  him,  and  because  that  so  occupied  them  as  that  they 
had  not  time  regularly  to  prepare  food  or  to  eat,  that  they  were  an  hun- 
gered, (ver.  1,)  and  profaned,  as  the  adversaries  accounted  it,  the 
Sabbath.  But  if  those  who  yet  ministered  in  that  temple  which  was 
but  the  shadow  of  the  true,  were  thus  privileged, — if,  as  every  man’s 
conscience  bore  witness,  they  were  blameless  in  all  this,  and  only  seem- 
ingly transgressed  the  law,  really  to  keep  it,  how  much  more  those  who 
ministered  about  the  Temple  not  made  with  hands, — the  true  Taber- 
nacle, which  the  Lord  had  pitched  and  not  man  ? J 

The  Lord  continues : “ But  if  ye  had  known,”  if  with  all  your 
searching  into  the  Scripture,  all  your  busy  scrutiny  of  its  letter,  you 
had  ever  so  entered  into  the  spirit  of  the  Law,  whereof  you  profess  to  be 
the  jealous  guardians  and  faithful  interpreters,  as  to  understand  “ what 

to  circumcision,  which  is  higher,  and  therein  you  have  right.  But  the  cures  which  I 
accomplish  are  greater  than  circumcision  itself : that  is  but  receiving  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  upon  a single  member ; my  cures  are  a making  the  entire  man  (oXog  uvdgu- 
7 rog)  whole : Shall  not  the  Sabbath  then  by  much  better  right  give  place  to  these 
works  of  mine  ?” 

* Cocceius  gives  admirably  the  meaning  here : Hoc  argumentum  urget  contra 
tacitam  exceptionem,  nempe,  discipulos  Christi  in  agro  non  in  templis  fecisse  opus  non 
sacerdotale.  Christus  ostendit  majorem  templo  hie  esse,  significans  se  Dominum 

templi  esse,  Mai.  iii.  1 ; Jer.  xi.  15 Quemadmodum  igitur  sacerdotes  licite 

fecerunt  opera,  quas  pertinebant  ad  cultum  Dei  ceremonialem ; ita  discipuli  Christi 
licite  fecerunt  ilia  qum  necesse  erat  facere,  ut  servirent  ipsi  vero  templo  et  Domino 
templi.  The  argument  is  in  no  way  materially  altered  if  we  admit  /utifyv  instead  of 

uv  into  the  text,  as  Lachmann  has  done,  and  as  is  generally  agreed  now  to  be  the 
preferable  reading.  We  have  exactly  in  the  same  manner,  (Matt.  xii.  42,)  Idod 
?v?i£lov  'LoT^ofidvrog  ud£. 

•j-  I know  not  whether  there  is  a force  in  Augustine’s  remark  ( Qucest.  xvii.  in 
Matth.,  qu.  10) : Unum  exemplum  datum  regise  potestatis  de  David,  alterum  sacer- 
dotalis  de  iis  qui  per  ministerium  templi  Sabbatum  violant : ut  multo  minus  ad  ipsum 
evulsarum  Sabbato  spicarum  crimen  pertineat,  qui  verus  rex  et  verus  sacerdos  est,  et 
ideo  Dominus  Sabbati. 

X Irenseus  (Con.  Hcer.,  1.  4,  c.  8,  § 3):  Per  Legis  verba  suos  discipulos  excusans 
et  significans  licere  sacerdotibus  libere  agere  ....  Sacerdotes  autem  sunt  omnes 
Domini  Apostoli,  qui  neque  agros  neque  domos  haereditant  hie,  sed  semper  altari  et 
Deo  serviunt. 


MAN  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 


253 


this  meaneth,  I will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have 
condemned  the  guiltless ;”  you  would  not  have  found  fault  with  them 
in  whom  no  true  fault  can  be  found.  The  quotation  is  from  Hos.  vi.  7, 
and  leaves  some  ambiguity  on  the  mind  of  an  English  reader ; which 
would  have  been  avoided  by  some  such  translation  as  this,  “ I desire 
mercy  and  not  sacrifice,”*  the  words  themselves  containing  one  of  those 
prophetic  glimpses  of  the  Gospel,  one  of  those  slights  cast  upon  the  Law 
even  during  the  time  when  the  Law  was  in  force, f and  example  of  that 
“finding  fault”  with  it  which  the  apostle  notes,  (Heb.  viii.  8,)  whereby 
a witness  was  borne  even  to  them  that  lived  under  it,  however  some 
may  have  refused  to  receive  that  witness,  that  it  was  not  the  highest 
thing,  but  that  God  had  something  better  and  higher  in  store  for  his  peo- 
ple. The  prophet  of  the  Old  Covenant  is  here  anticipating  the  great 
apostle  of  the  New,  and  saying  with  as  clear  a voice,  “ Though  I speak 
with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels  ....  and  though  I bestow  all  my 
goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  though  I give  my  body  to  be  burned,  and 
have  not  charity,  it  profiteth  me  nothing.”  (1  Cor.  xiii.  1 — 3.)  He  is 
declaring,  That  which  God  longs  for  on  the  part  of  men  is  not  the  out- 
ward observance,  the  sacrifice  in  the  letter,  but  the  inward  outpouring 
of  love, — that  which  the  “sacrifice”  symbolized,  the  giving  up  of  self  in 
the  self-devotion  of  love.  (Cf.  Heb.  x.  5 — 10.)  This  must  underlie 
every  outward  sacrifice  and  service  to  give  it  value ; and  when  the  ques 
tion  arises  between  the  form  and  the  spirit,  so  that  the  one  can  only  be 
preserved  by  the  loss  of  the  other,  then  the  form  must  yield  to  the  life, 
as  the  meaner  to  the  more  precious.}; 

But  the  application  of  the  words  in  the  present  case  still  remains  un- 
settled. For  it  may  be  either,  “If  you  had  truly  understood  what  God 

* In  the  LXX.,  elEog  Oslo  r\  Ovaiav,  nal  ETvtyvooiv  Qeov,  rj  S’konavTu/iaTa. 

\ Among  those  slights,  God’s  words  by  Ezekiel,  “ "Wherefore  I gave  them  also 
statutes  that  were  not  good,  and  judgments  whereby  they  should  not  live,”  (xx.  25,) 
are  often  enumerated ; by  Melancthon,  by  Reineccius,  (Deus  ne  suae  quidem  legi  hunc 
honorem  tribuit,  quod  mereatur  vitam  eeternam,)  and  by  many  more.  Yet  this  is  cer- 
tainly an  error.  Depreciating  things  as  are  spoken  of  the  Old  Covenant,  yet  this  is 
ever  relatively,  and  only  in  comparison  with  the  New:  never  this  absolute  blame. 
(Vitringa,  Obss.  Sac.,  v.  1,  p.  265 ; praecepta  non  bona,  h in  quibus  nihil 

inerat  boni.)  The  verse  is  to  be  explained  by  the  verse  ensuing,  with  which  it  stands 
in  intimate  connection.  The  “ I gave”  here,  is  but  the  iraptdunEV  avrotig  6 Qeoc  cic 
ttuOti  dripiag,  of  Rom.  i.  26.  Cf.  Acts  vii.  42  ; 2 Thess.  ii.  11.  These  “statutes  that 
were  not  good,”  were  the  heathen  abominations  to  which  God  gave  them  over. 

J Exactly  in  obedience  to  this  precept,  “ I will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,”  and 
with  a true  insight  into  the  law  of  love,  as  the  highest  law  of  all,  those  holy  men  have 
acted,  that  in  great  needs  have  sold  the  most  sacred  vessels  of  the  Church  for  the  re- 
demption of  captives,  or  for  the  saving  of  perishing  souls  in  some  great  famine. 


254 


THE  RESTORING  OE  THE 


asks  of  men,  what  service  from  them  pleases  him  best,  you  would  have 
understood  that  my  disciples  were  offering  that,  who  in  true  love  and 
pity  for  perishing  souls  had  so  labored  and  toiled  as  to  go  without  their 
necessary  food,  and  were  therefore  thus  obliged  to  satisfy  the  cravings 
of  a present  hunger,* — that  their  loving  transgression  was  better  than 
many  a man’s  cold  and  heartless  clinging  to  the  letter  of  the  command- 
ment.” Or  else  the  words  may  have  more  direct  reference  to  the  Pha- 
risees themselves : “ If  you  had  understood  the  service  wherein  God  de- 
lighted the  most,  you  would  have  sought  to  please  him  by  meekness  and 
by  mercy, — by  a charitable  judgment  of  your  brethren, — by  that  love 
out  of  a pure  heart,  which  to  him  ‘ is  more  than  all  whole  burnt-offerings 
and  sacrifices.’  (Mark  xii.  33.)  Ye  would  not  thus  have  been  judges 
of  evil  thoughts.”  (Prov.  xvii.  15.)  Thus  01shausen,f  who  adds: 
“ This  merciful  love  was  just  what  was  wanting  in  the  fault-finding  of 
the  Pharisees.  It  was  no  true  bettering  of  the  disciples  which  they  de- 
sired ; no  pure  zeal  for  the  cause  of  God  urged  them  on.  Rather  sought 
they  out  of  envy  and  an  inner  bitterness  to  bring  something  against  the 
disciples ; and,  in  fact,  out  of  this  did,  in  an  apparent  zeal  for  the  Lord, 
persecute  the  Lord  in  his  disciples.  They  ‘ condemned  the  guiltless 
for  the  disciples  had  not  out  of  ennui , for  mere  pastime’s  sake,  plucked 
the  ears,  but  out  of  hunger,  (ver.  1.)  Their  own  they  had  forsaken, 
and  they  hungered  now  in  their  labor  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  There- 
fore stood  they  in  the  same  position  as  David  the  servant  of  God,  who, 
in  like  manner,  with  them  that  were  with  him,  hungered  in  the  service 
of  the  Lord;  as  the  priests,  who  in  the  temple  must  labor  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  so  for  the  Lord’s  sake  seem  to  break  the  law  of  the  Lord. 
While  this  was  so,  they  also  might  without  scruple  eat  of  the  shewbread 
of  the  Lord : what  was  God’s,  that  was  theirs.” 

St.  Mark  has  alone  preserved  for  us  the  weighty  words  which  fol- 
low, (ii.  27 :)  “ The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath.”  The  end  for  which  the  Sabbath  was  ordained  was  to  bless 
man;  the  end  for  which  man  was  created,  was  not  to  observe  the  Sab- 
bath. A principle  is  here  laid  down,  which  it  is  clearly  impossible  to 
confine  to  the  Sabbath  alone.  Rather  it  must  extend  to  the  whole  circle 
of  outward  ordinances.  It  does  in  fact  say  this,  The  Law  was  made 
for  man ; not  man  for  the  Law.  Man  is  the  end,  and  the  ordinances  of 
the  Law"  the  means ; not  these  the  end,  and  man  the  means.  J Man  was 

* So  Maldonatus : Hoc  est  quod  apostolos  maxime  excusabat,  quod  in  prsedicando 
et  faciendis  miraculis  adeo  fuissent  occupati,  ut  nec  parare  cibum  nec  capere  possent. 

| In  like  manner  Wolf  ( Curce , in  loc.) : Non  dubitaverim. . .verba  hasc  opponi  ju- 
uicio  Pharisseorum  immiti  et  rigido,  de  discipulis  tanquam  violatoribus  Sabbathi,  rato 

X See  a remarkable  parallel  2 Macc.  v.  19. 


MAN  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 


255 


not  made  to  the  end  that  he  might  observe  these ; but  these  were  given, 
that  they  might  bless  man,  that  they  might  train  and  discipline  him  till 
he  should  be  ready  to  serve  God  from  the  free  impulses  of  his  spirit.* 
And  all  this  being  so,  “therefore  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord. also  of  the 
Sabbath.”  Now  to  say  here  with  Grotius,  that  “ Son  of  man”  is  equiv- 
alent to  man,  and  that  the  meaning  of  these  words  is,  The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  man  therefore  can  do  with  it  as  he  will,  is  evidently 
an  error. j-  For,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  “ Son  of  man,”  occurring  as  it  does  eighty-eight  times, 
does  not  mean  the  Messiah,  the  man  in  whom  the  idea  of  humanity  was 
fully  realized;  and,  again,  with  all  the  bold  things  which  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  man’s  relations  to  the  Law,  he  never  speaks  of  him,  even  after 
he  is  risen  with  Christ,  as  being  its  lord.  He  is  not  under  it ; he  is  re- 
leased from  its  rule,  so  that  it  is  henceforth  with  him  as  a friendly  com- 
panion, not  as  an  imperious  schoolmaster. J But  it  is  God’s  Law,  and 
so  long  as  he  is  still  in  the  flesh,  and  therefore  may  continually  need  its 
restraints  upon  his  flesh,  he  never  stands  above  it ; rather,  at  the  first 
moment  of  his  falling  away  from  the  liberty  of  a service  in  Christ,  will 
come  under  it  anew. 

Even  the  ceremonial  law  man  is  not  lord  of,  to  loose  himself  from 
it,  as  upon  the  plea  of  insight  into  the  deeper  mysteries  which  it  shadows 
forth : he  must  wait  a loosing  from  it  at  the  hands  from  which  it  first 
proceeded,  and  which  first  imposed  it.  Simply  as  man,  Christ  himself 
was  “made  under  the  law.”  (Gal.  iv.  4.)  But  as  Son  of  man,  as  the 
Messiah,  who  is  also  Son  of  God,  he  has  power  over  all  these  outward 
ordinances : he  himself  first  gave  them  for  the  training  of  man,  as  a pre- 
paratory discipline,  and  when  they  have  done  their  work,  when  this  pre- 
paratory discipline  is  accomplished,  he  may  remove  them ; he  may  say 
when  the  shadow  shall  give  place  to  the  substance,  when  his  people  so 
possess  the  last  that  they  may  forego  the  first.  And  it  was  the  sign 

* Even  in  the  Talmud  it  was  said,  “ The  Sabbath  is  in  your  hands,  and  you  not 
in  the  hands  of  the  Sabbath  ; for  it  is  written,  The  Lord  hath  given  you  the  Sabbath. 
Exod.  xvi.  29  ; Ezek.  xx.  12.” 

f See  (in  loc.)  Grotius’s  ingenious  defence  of  his  theory,  which  he  confidently 
affirms  is  the  only  one  which  the  connection  of  the  words  in  St.  Mark  will  allow : 
but  Cocceius  answers  well,  Non  sequitur : Hominis  causa  factum  est  Sabbatum  : 
Ergo  homo  est.  Dominus  Sabbati.  Sed  bene  sequitur : Ergo  is,  cujus  est  homo,  et 
qui  propter  hominem  venit  in  mundum,  quique  omnem  poteatatem  in  coelo  et  terra 
possidet,  in  hominis  salutem  et  bonum  est  et  Dominus  Sabbati.  Ceterum  Dominus 
Sabbati  non  esset,  nisi  esset  supremus  voyoderris,  et  nisi  ad  ipsius  gloriam  pertineret 
Sabbati  institutio,  et  ejus  usus  ad  salutem  hominis. 

% He  is  not,  to  use  Augustine’s  distinction,  sub  lege,  but  he  is  cum  lege,  and  in 
lege. 


256 


THE  RESTORING  OF  THE 


and  augury  that  they  had  done  their  work,  when  he  was  come,  in  whom 
the  highest  gifts  of  God  to  men  were  given.  The  very  fact  that  he  was 
trusted  with  the  highest,  involved  his  power  over  all  lower  forms  of 
teaching.  Christ  is  “ the  end  of  the  law,” — is  every  way  the  end,  as 
that  to  which  it  pointed,  as  that  in  which  it  is  swallowed  up ; being  him- 
self living  law,  not  therefore  in  any  true  sense  the  destroyer  of  the  law, 
as  the  adversaries  charged  him  with  being,  but  its  transformer  and  glo- 
rifier,  changing  it  from  law  into  liberty,  from  shadow  to  substance,  from 
letter  to  spirit.* 

To  this  our  Lord’s  clearing  of  his  disciples,  or  rather  of  himself  in 
his  disciples,  (for  the  accusation  was  truly  against  him,)  the  healing  of 
the  man  with  a withered  hand  is  attached  immediately,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  St.  Matthew,  although  St.  Luke  shows  that  it  did  not  find  place  till 
the  following  Sabbath.  Like  another  healing,  very  similar  in  its  circum- 
stances, that  of  the  woman  with  the  spirit  of  infirmity,  (Luke  xiii.  11,) 
like  that  too  of  the  demoniac  at  Capernaum,  (Mark  i.  2,  3,)  it  was 
wrought  in  a synagogue.  There,  on  the  ensuing  Sabbath,  in  “ their  syn- 
agogue,”  the  synagogue  of  those  with  whom  he  had  thus  disputed,  he 
encountered  “ a man  who  had  his  hand  withered .”  St.  Luke  tells  us  that 
it  was  his  “ right  hand ” which  was  thus  affected.  The  disease  under 
which  this  man  labored,  and  which  probably  extended  throughout  the 
whole  arm,  was  one  occasioned  by  a deficient  absorption  of  nutriment  in 
the  limb ; it  was  in  fact  a partial  atrophy,  showing  itself  in  a gradual 
wasting  of  the  size  of  the  limb,  with  a loss  of  its  powers  of  motion,  and 
ending  with  its  total  death.  When  once  thoroughly  established,  it  is  in- 
curable by  any  art  of  man.f 

The  apparent  variation  in  the  different  records  of  this  miracle,  that 
in  St.  Matthew  the  question  proceeds  from  the  Pharisees,  in  St.  Mark 
and  Luke  from  the  Lord,  is  no  real  one ; the  reconciliation  of  the  two 
accounts  is  easy.  The  Pharisees  first  ask  him,  “ Is  it  lawful  to  heal  on 
the  Sabbath  day  P He  answers  this  question  as  was  his  wont,  (see 

* Augustine  ( Serrn . 136,  3):  Dominus  Sabbatum  solvebat : sed  non  ideo  reus. 
Quid  est  quod  dixi,  Sabbatum  solvebat?  Lux  ipse  venerat,  umbras  removebat- 
Sabbatum  enim  a Domino  Deo  prseceptum  est,  ab  ipso  Christo  prseceptum,  qui  cum 
Patre  erat,  quando  lex  ilia  dabatur  : ab  ipso  prseceptum  est,  sed  in  umbra  futuri. 

f See  Winer’s  j Real  Worterbuch,  v.  1,  p.  796.  In  the  apocryphal  “ Gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews,”  in  use  among  the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites,  which  consisted 
probably  of  our  St.  Matthew,  with  some  extraneous  additions,  this  man  appeared  as 
a mason,  and  is  introduced  as  thus  addressing  the  Lord : Coementarius  eram,  manibus 
victum  quseritans : precor  te,  Jesu,  ut  mihi  restituas  sanitatem,  ne  turpiter  mendicem 
cibos.  The  xe~LPa  EXUV  Zyp&v  is  equivalent  to  the  rrjv  xelpa  ddpavhg  uv  of  Philostratus, 
( Vita  Apollon.,  1.  3,  c.  39,)  whom  the  Indian  sages  heal. 


MAN  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 


257 


Matt.  xxi.  24,)  by  another  question.  That  this  is  such  another  counter- 
question comes  out  most  plainly  in  St.  Luke  : “ / will  ask  you  one  thing. 
Is  it  lawful  on  the  Sabbath  days  to  do  good  or  to  do  evil?  to  save  life  or 
destroy  it  ?”  Our  Lord  with  the  same  infinite  wisdom  which  we  admire 
in  his  answer  to  the  question  of  the  lawyer,  “ Who  is  my  neighbor  V9 
(Luke  x.  29,)  shifts  the  whole  argument  and  lifts  it  altogether  into  a 
higher  region,  where  at  once  it  is  seen  on  which  side  is  the  right  and 
the  truth.  They  had  put  the  alternatives  of  doing  or  not  doing ; here 
there  might  be  a question.  But  he  shows  that  the  alternatives  are, 
doing  good  or  failing  to  do  good, — which  last  he  puts  as  identical  with 
doing  evil,  the  neglecting  to  save  as  equivalent  with  destroying.  Here 
there  could  be  no  question  : this  uiider  no  circumstances  could  be  right ; 
it  could  never  be  good  to  sin.  Therefore  it  is  not  merely  allowable,  but 
a duty,  to  do  some  things  on  the  Sabbath.*  “ Yea,”  he  says,  “ and 
things  much  less  important  and  earnest  than  that  which  I am  about  to 
do,  you  would  not  leave  undone.  Which  of  you  would  not  draw  your 
sheep  from  the  pit  into  which  it  had  fallen  on  the  Sabbath ; and  shall  I, 
the  true  shepherd,  not  rescue  a sheep  of  my  fold,  a man,  that  is  far 
better  than  a sheep  1 Your  own  consciences  tell  you  that  that  were  a 
true  Sabbath  work ; and  how  much  worthier  this  ! You  have  asked  me, 
Is  it  lawful  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  % I answer,  It  is  lawful  to  do  well  on 
that  day,  and  therefore  to  heal.”  They  can  answer  him  nothing  further, 
— “ they  held  their  peace” 

“ Then,”  that  is,  as  St.  Mark  tells  us,  u when  he  had  looked  round 
about  on  them  with  anger , being  grieved  for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts , 

* Danzius  (in  Meuschen’s  N.  I ex  Talm.  illustr.,  p.  585)  : Immutat  ergo  bene- 
ficns  Servator  omnem  controversise  statum,  ac  long&  eundem  rectius,  quam  fraudis 
isti  artifices,  proponit.  The  object  of  the  interesting  and  learned  Essay,  Christi 
Curatio  Sabbathica  vindicata  ex  legibus  Judaicis,  from  which  the  above  quotation  is 
made,  is  to  prove  by  extracts  from  their  own  books  that  the  Jews  were  not  at  all  so 
strict,  as  now,  when  they  wanted  to  find  an  accusation  against  the  Lord,  they  pro- 
fessed to  be,  in  the  matter  of  the  things  permitted  or  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath.  He 
finds  an  indication  of  this  (p.  607)  in  our  Saviour’s  words,  “ Thou  hypocrite ,”  addressed 
on  one  of  these  occasions  to  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue.  (Luke  xiii.  15.)  Of  course 
the  great  difficulty  in  judging  whether  he  has  made  out  his  point,  is  to  know  how  far 
the  extracts  in  proof,  confessedly  from  works  of  a later,  often  a far  later  date,  than 
the  time  of  Christ,  do  fairly  represent  the  earlier  Jewish  canons.  The  fixity  of  Jewish 
tradition  is  much  in  favor  of  the  supposition  that  they  do ; but  there  always  remains 
something  in  these  proofs,  which  causes  them  to  fail  absolutely  to  prove.  In  the 
apocryphal  gospels,  as  for  instance  in  the  Evangelium  Nicodemi,  (see  Thilo’s  Codex 
Apocryphus,  pp.  502,  558,)  it  is  very  observable  how  prominent  a place  among  the 
accusations  brought  against  Christ  on  his  trial,  are  the  healings  wrought  upon  the 
Sabbath. 


258 


THE  MAN  WITH  A WITHERED  HAND. 


saith  he  to  the  man , Stretch  forth  thy  handy  The  existence  of  grief  and 
anger  together  in  the  same  heart  is  no  contradiction  : indeed,  with  him 
who  was  at  once  perfect  love  and  perfect  holiness,  grief  for  the  sinner 
must  ever  have  gone  hand  in  hand  with  anger  against  the  sin  ; and  this 
anger,  which  with  us  is  ever  in  danger  of  becoming  a turbid  thing,  of 
passing  into  anger  against  the  man,  who  is  God’s  creature,  instead  of 
being  anger  against  the  sin,  which  is  the  devil’s  corruption  of  God’s 
creature, — with  him  was  perfectly  pure ; for  it  is  not  the  agitation  of 
the  waters,  but  the  sediment  at  the  bottom,  which  troubles  and  defiles 
them,  and  where  no  sediment  is,  no  impurity  will  follow  on  their  agita- 
tion. The  man  obeyed  the  word,  which  was  a word  of  power ; he 
stretched  forth  his  hand,  “ and  it  was'restored  whole  like  as  the  other.” 

The  madness  of  Christ’s  enemies  rises  to  the  highest  pitch ; he  had 
not  merely  broken  their  traditions,  but  he  had  put  them  to  silence  and 
to  shame  before  all  the  people.  Wounded  pride,  rancorous  hate,  were 
mingled  with  and  exasperated  their  other  feelings  of  evil  will  to  him : 

“ They  were  filled  with  madness (Luke  vi.  11 ;)  and  in  their  blind  hate 
they  snatch  at  any  weapon  whereby  they  may  hope  to  destroy  him. 

They  do  not  shrink  from  joining  league  with  the  Herodians,  the  Roman- 
izing party  in  the  land, — attached  to  Herod  Antipas,  the  ruler  of  Galilee, 
who  was  only  kept  on  his  throne  by  Roman  influence, — if  between  them 
they  may  bring  to  nothing  this  new  power  which  seems  equally  to 
threaten  both.  So,  on  a later  occasion,  (Matt.  xxii.  16,)  the  same  parties 
combine  together  to  ensnare  him.  For  thus  it  is  with  the  world : it 
lays  aside  for  the  moment  its  mutual  jealousies  and  enmities,  to  join  in 
a common  conspiracy  against  the  truth.  It  is  no  longer  a kingdom  di 
vided  against  itself,  when  the  kingdom  of  light  is  to  be  opposed.  Herod 
and  Pilate  can  be  friends  together,  if  it  be  for  the  destroying  of  the  Christ. 

(Luke  xxii.  12.)  He  meanwhile,  aware  of  their  machinations,  withdraws 
himself  from  their  malice  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  sea  of  Galilee. 

i 

| 


J 


XX. 


THE  WO MAI  WITH  A SPIRIT  OF  INFIRMITY. 

Luke  xiii.  10 — 17. 

We  have  here  another  of  our  Lord’s  cures  which,  being  accomplished  on 
the  Sabbath,  awoke  the  indignation  of  the  chief  teachers  of  the  Jewish 
Church ; cures,  of  which  many,  though  not  all,  are  recorded  chiefly  for 
the  sake  of  showing  how  the  Lord  dealt  with  these  cavillers ; and  what 
he  himself  contemplated  as  the  true  hallowing  of  that  day.  This  being 
the  main  point  which  the  Evangelist  has  in  his  eye,  every  thing  else  falls 
into  the  background.  We  know  not  where  this  healing  took  place;  we 
are  merely  told  that  it  was  u in  one  of  their  synagogues While  there 
was  but  one  temple  in  the  land,  and  indeed  but  one  for  all  the  Jews  in 
all  the  world,  there  were  synagogues  in  every  place : and  in  one  of  these 
Christ,  a!  was  often  his  wont,  was  teaching  upon  the  Sabbath.  Among 
those  present  there  was  a woman  that  was  bent  double,  that  had,  in  the 
words  of  St.  Luke,  “a  spirit  of  infirmity ,”  which  showed  itself  in  this 
permanent  and  unnatural  contraction  of  her  body.  Had  we  only  these 
words,  ‘ spirit  of  infirmity ,”  we  might  be  doubtful  whether  St.  Luke 
meant  to  trace  up  her  complaint  to  any  other  cause  beyond  the  natural 
causes,  whence  flow  the  weaknesses  and  sufferings  which  afflict  our  race. 
But  our  Lord’s  later  words  concerning  this  woman, — “ whom  Satan  hath 
hound ,” — are  more  explicit,  and  leave  no  doubt  of  his  meaning.  Her 
calamity  had  a deeper  root ; she  should  be  classed  with  those  possessed 
by  evil  spirits,  though  the  type  of  her  possession  was  infinitely  milder 
than  that  of  most,  as  is  shown  by  her  permitted  presence  at  the  public 
worship  of  God.  Her  sickness,  having  its  first  seat  in  her  spirit,  had 
brought  her  into  a moody  melancholic  state,  of  which  the  outward  con- 
traction of  the  muscles  of  her  body,  the  inability  to  lift  herself,  was  but 
the  sign  and  the  consequence.* 

* This  woman  is  often  contemplated  as  the  symbol  of  all  those  whom  the  poet 
addresses — 


260  THE  WOMAN  WITH  A SPIRIT  OF  INFIRMITY. 


Our  Lord  did  not  here  wait  till  his  aid  was  sought,  though  it  may 
be  that  her  presence  in  that  place  was,  on  her  part,  a tacit  seeking  of  his 
help, — as,  indeed,  seems  implied  in  the  words  of  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, bidding  the  multitude  upon  other  days  than  the  Sabbath  to  “ come 
and  be  healed ” Seeing  her,  he  himself  “ called  her  to  him , and  laid  his 
hands  on  her”* — those  hands  being  here  the  channel  by  which  the 
streams  of  his  truer  life,  which  was  to  dissolve  those  bonds,  spiritual 
and  bodily,  whereby  she  was  held,  should  flow  into  her, — saying  at  the 
same  time,  (for  though  recorded,  as  was  necessary,  one  after  another,  we 
are  to  assume  the  words  and  imposition  of  hands  as  identical  in  time,) 
“ Woman,  thou  art  loosed  from  thine  infirmity ” And  the  effect  followed 
the  words  and  the  hands  laid  on : “ immediately  she  was  made  straight , 
and  glorified  God”  She  glorified,  too,  no  doubt,  the  author  of  her  sal- 
vation, and  this  was  what  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  could  not  bear,  (cf. 
Matt.  xxi.  15,  16,) — a “ hypocrite  f as  the  Lord  calls  him, — -zeal  for 


Oh  curvae  in  terras  animae ! 

For  the  erect  countenance  of  man,  in  contrast  with  that  downward  bent  of  all  other 
creatures,  is  the  symbol  impressed  upon  his  outward  frame,  of  his  nobler  destiny,  of 
a heavenly  hope  with  which  they  have  nothing  in  common ; which  the  poet,  descri- 
bing the  gifts  which  God  gave  to  man  at  his  creation,  has  well  expressed : 

Os  homini  sublime  dedit,  ccelumque  tueri 
Jussit,  et  erectos  in  sidera  tollere  vultus : 

» 

and  Juvenal,  Sat  15,  142 — 141,  in  a yet  nobler  strain:  compare  Plato’s  Timceus, 
Stallbaum’s  ed.,  p.  360,  and  the  derivation  of  avdpwTzog,  namely,  the  upward  looking, 
which  some  have  suggested,  is  well  known.  On  the  other  hand,  the  looks  ever  bent 
upon  the  ground  are  a natural  symbol  of  a heart  and  soul  turned  earthward  alto- 
gether, and  wholly  forgetful  of  their  true  home,  and  of  man’s  good,  which  is  not 
below  but  above  him.  Milton’s  fine  use  of  this  symbol  in  his  description  of  Mam- 
mon {Par.  Lost,  b.  1)  will  readily  occur : 

Mammon,  the  least  erected  Spirit  that  fell 

From  heaven ; for  even  in  heaven  his  looks  and  thoughts 

Were  always  downward  bent. 

Thus  Augustine  {Enarr.  2a  in  Ps.  lxviii.  24) : Qui  bene  audit,  Sursum  cor,  curvum 
dorsum  non  habet.  Erecta  quippe  statura  exspectat  spem  repositam  sibi  in  ccelo. . . . 
At  vero  qui  futurse  vitae  spem  non  intelligunt,  jam  excoecati,  de  inferioribus  cogitant : 
et  hoc  est  habere  dorsum  curvum,  a quo  morbo  Dominus  mulierem  illam  liberavit.  Cf. 
Enarr.  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  I ; Qucest.  Evany.,  1.  2,  qu.  29  : Ambrose,  Hexa'em.,  1.  3,  c.  12. 
Theophylact  (in  loc.) : Tavra  tie  yoi  ldyj3ave  rd  Oavyara  ical  trd  rov  evrog  dvdpuirov 
ovyKVTTTSi  ydg  'ipvxv  brav  erri  rag  yrjtvag  ybvag  <f>povr'ibag  vevy,  teal  yrjbbv  ovpdviov  r\ 
deiov  (jyavra&Tai. 

* Chrysostom  (in  Cramer’s  Catena) : UpoaeTUTidrim  be  teal  %£tpag  avry,  Iva  ydQo 
uev  on  rrjv  tov  Qsov  loyov  bvvay.Lv  re  nal  kvepyeiav  r]  ayia  irEtpoprjKE  cap £. 


THE  WOMAN-  WITH  A SPIEIT  OF  IKFIEMITT.  261 

God  being  but  the  cloak  which  he  wore  to  hide,  whether  from  others 
only,  or,  in  a sadder  hypocrisy,  from  his  own  heart  also,  his  true  hatred 
of  all  that  was  holy  and  divine.*  He  was  not,  in  fact,  disturbed,  be- 
cause the  Sabbath  was  violated,  but  because  Christ  was  glorified. 
Therefore  drew  he  down  upon  himself  that  sharp  rebuke  from  him,  whose 
sharpest  rebuke  was  uttered  only  in  love,  and  who  would  have  torn,  if 
that  had  been  possible,  from  off  this  man’s  heart,  the  veil  which  was 
hiding  his  true  self  even  from  his  own  eyes.  Another  part  of  his 
falseness  was,  that  not  daring  directly  to  find  fault  with  the  Lord,  he 
seeks  obliquely  to  reach  him  through  the  people,  who  were  more  under 
his  influence,  and  whom  he  feared  less.  He  takes  advantage  of  his  po- 
sition as  the  interpreter  of  the  Law  and  the  oracles  of  God,  and  from 
“ Moses1  seat”  would  fain  teach  the  people  that  this  work  done  to  the 
glory  of  God — this  restoring  of  a human  body  and  a human  soul — this 
undoing  the  heavy  burden — this  unloosing  the  chain  of  Satan, — was  a 
servile  work,  and  one,  therefore,  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath.  Blaming 
them  for  coming  to  be  healed,  he  indeed  is  thinking  not  of  them,  but 
means  that  rebuke  to  glance  off  on  him  who  has  put  forth  on  this  day 
his  power  to  help  and  to  save. 

Every  word  of  Christ’s  answer  is  significant.  It  is  not  a defence  of 
his  breaking  the  Sabbath,  but  a declaration  that  he  has  not  broken  it  at 
all.f  “You  have  your  relaxations  of  the  Sabbath  strictness,  required 
by  the  very  nature  and  necessities  of  your  earthly  condition ; you  make 
no  difficulty  in  the  matter,  where  there  is  danger  that  loss  would  ensue, 
that  your  possessions  would  be  perilled  by  the  leaving  some  act  undone. 
Your  ox  and  your  ass  are  precious  in  your  sight,  and  you  count  it  nc 
violation  of  the  day  to  lead  them  away  to  water.  Yet  is  not  a human 
soul  more  precious  still?  the  loosing  this  as  allowable  as  the  loosing 
those?”  Every  word  in  his  answer  tells.  “Each  one  of  yon,  what- 
ever your  scheme  and  theory  may  be  concerning  the  strictness  with  which 
the  Sabbath  ought  to  be  kept,  disciples  of  Hillel  or  disciples  of  Scham- 
mai,  you  loose  your  beasts ; yet  ye  will  not  that  I should  loose  a human 
spirit — one  who  is  of  more  value  than  many  oxen  and  asses ; — and  this 
you  do,  though  they  have  not  been  tied  up  for  more  than  for  some  brief 
space  ; while,  in  your  thoughts,  I may  not  unloose  from  the  thraldom  of 

* Augustine  ( Enarr . 2a  in  Ps.  lxviii.  24) : Bene  scandalizati  sunt  de  ilia  erecta, 
ipsi  curvi.  And  again  (Serin.  392,  c.  1):  Calumniabantur  autem  erigenti,  qui,  nisi 
curvi ? 

I Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  30) : TJnusquisque  vestrum  sabbatis  non  solvit 
asinum  aut  bovem  suum  a praesepi  et  ducit  ad  potum  ? Ergo  secundum  conditionem 
legis  operatus,  legem  confirmavit,  non  dissolvit,  jubentem  nullum  opus  fieri,  nisi  quod 
fieret  omni  animse,  quanto  potius  humanae.  Cf.  Iren^eus,  Con.  Hccr.,  1.  4 c.  8. 


262  THE  WOMAN  WITH  A SPIRIT  OF  INFIRMITY. 


Satan  this  captive  of  eighteen  years.*  Yours,  moreover,  is  a long  process 
of  unfastening  and  leading  away  to  water, — which  yet,  (and  rightly,)  you 
make  no  difficulty  about ; but  ye  are  offended  with  me  who  have  spoken 
but  a word  and  released  a soul.”f  There  lies  at  the  root  of  this  argu- 
ment, as  of  so  much  else  in  Scripture,  a deep  assertion  of  the  specific  dif- 
ference between  man,  the  lord  of  the  creation,  for  whom  all  things  were 
made,  and  all  the  inferior  orders  of  beings  that  tread  the  same  earth 
with  him,  and  with  whom  upon  the  side  of  his  body  he  is  akin.  He  is 
something  more  than  the  first  in  this  chain  and  order  of  beings ; he  is 
specifically  different.  (Cf.  1 Cor.  ix.  9.  “Doth  God  take  care  of 
oxen?”  and  Ps.  viii.  8.)  And  more  than  merely  this  : the  woman  was 
a “ daughter  of  Abraham .”  Some  think  here  that  the  Lord  means  to 
magnify  her  claim  to  this  benefit,  as  being  an  heir  of  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham,— one,  indeed,  who,  for  the  saving  of  her  soul  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord,  had  come  for  some  sin  under  the  scourge  of  Satan  and  this  long 
and  sore  affliction  of  the  flesh.  Yet  it  is  more  probable  that  he  means 
but  this,  that  she  was  one  of  the  chosen  race,  a daughter  of  Abraham 
after  the  flesh, — however,  after  this  healing,  she  may  have  become  some- 
thing more,  a child  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  J 

* Ambrose  {Exp.  in  Luc.,  1.  7,  c.  1T5) : Vinculum  vinculo  comparat. . . .Cum  ipsi 
animalibus  Sabbato  solvunt  vincula,  repreliendunt  Dominum,  qui  homines  a peccato- 
rum  vinculis  liberavit. 

f Chemnitz  {Harm.  Evang.,  c.  112):  Tempus  etiam  inter  se  confert.  Jumenta 
fortassis  ad  noctem  unam  aut  paucos  dies  prsesepi  alligantur.  At  vero  h£ec  fbemina 
vel  saltern  ob  temporis  prolixitatem  omnium  commiseratione  dignissima  est. 

^ In  a sermon  on  the  Day  of  the  Nativity,  {Serm.  Inedd.,  p.  33,)  Augustine  makes 
the  following  application  of  this  history  : Inclinavit  se,  cum  sublimis  esset,  ut  nos  qui 
incurvati  eramus,  erigeret.  Incurvata  siquidem  erat  humana  natura  ante  adventum 
Domini,  peccatorum  onere  depressa ; et  quidem  se  in  peccati  vitium  spontanea  volun- 
tate  curvaverat,  sed  sponte  se  erigere  non  valebat ....  Hsec  autem  mulier  formam  in- 
curvationis  totius  humani  generis  prmferebat.  In  hac  muliere  hodie  natus  Dominus 
noster  vinculis  Satanse  alligatos  absolvit,  et  licentiam  nobis  tribuit  ad  superna  con- 
spicere,  ut  qui  olim  constituti  in  miseriis  tristes  ambulabamus,  hodie  venientem  ad  nos 
medicum  suscipientes,  nimirum  gaudeamus. 


XXL 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  MAN  WITH  A DROPSY. 

Luke  xiv.  1 — 6. 

All  which  is  most  remarkable  in  the  circumstances  of  this  miracle  has 
been  already  anticipated  in  others,  as  especially  in  the  two  immediately 
preceding,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  Our  Lord,  not  even  at  this 
late  period  of  his  ministry  treating  the  Pharisees  as  wholly  and  finally 
hardened  against  the  truth,  but  still  seeking  to  win,  if  it  were  possible, 
them  also  for  his  kingdom,  had  accepted  the  invitation  of  one  of  the  chief 
among  them  “ to  eat  bread”  in  his  house.  This  was  upon  the  Sabbath, 
the  day  which  the  Jews  ordinarily  selected  for  their  festal  meals : for 
the  idea  of  the  Sabbath  among  the  Jews  was  not  at  all  that  of  a day  to 
be  austerely  kept,  but  very  much  the  contrary.  The  practical  abuses 
of  it  were  the  turning  it  into  a day  of  rioting  and  excess.*  But  the 
invitation,  though  accepted  in  love,  yet  seems  not  to  have  been  given  in 
good  faith,  but  in  the  hope  that  the  nearer  and  more  accurate  watching 
of  the  Lord’s  words  and  ways,  which  such  an  opportunity  would  give, 
might  afford  some  new  matter  of  accusation  against  him.j-  Such  was, 
probably,  the  spring  of  the  apparent  courtesy  which  they  showed  him 
now,  and  so  did  they  reverence  the  sacred  laws  of  hospitality. | 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  man  with  a dropsy  was  of  design 
placed  where  he  was,  since  he  would  scarcely  without  permission  have 
found  entrance  into  a private  house.  But  although  it  is  quite  conceiva- 

* On  the  abuses  in  this  kind  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  at  a later  day,  see  Augustine, 
Enarr.  in  Ps.  xci.  1,  and  2a  in  Ps.  xxxii.  2,  and  Berm.  9,  c.  3. 

| The  emphasis,  however,  which  Hammond  finds  in  the  nal  avrol,  even  they  that 
had  invited  him  did  treacherously  watch  him, — as  though  the  Evangelist  would  bring 
into  notice  the  violation  here  of  the  laws  of  hospitality,  is  questionable.  Such  a 
superabounding  use  of  Kalis  not  unusual  in  St.  Luke. 

X THc rav  'irapaTTjpoVfisvoL.  For  a similar  use  of  Trapairjpeiv,  compare  vi.  7;  xx. 
20  • Mark  iii.  2 ; Dan.  vi.  11. 


264 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE 


ble  of  these  malignant  adversaries  of  Christ,  that  they  should  have  laid 
such  a snare  for  him  as  this,  yet  there  is  nothing  in  the  narration  to  give 
it  likelihood  here ; and  the  difficulty  that,  without  such  design,  the  man 
would  scarcely  have  found  his  way  into  the  house  of  the  Pharisee,  rests 
upon  an  ignorance  of  the  almost  public  life  of  the  East,  and  a forgetting 
how  easily  in  a moment  of  high  excitement,  such  as  this  must  have 
been,  the  feeble  barriers  which  the  conventional  rules  of  society  would 
oppose  might  be  broken  through.  (Luke  vii.  36,  37.)  At  any  rate,  if 
there  was  such  a plot,  the  man  himself  was  no  party  to  it ; for  the  Lord 
“ took  him , and  healed  him , and  let  him  go .” 

Yet,  ere  he  did  this,  he  justified  the  work  which  he  would  accom- 
plish, as  more  than  once  he  had  justified  other  similar  works  of  grace 
and  love  wrought  upon  the  Sabbath,  saying  to  these  interpreters  of  the 
Law,  “ Is  it  lawful  to  heal  upon  the  Sabbath  Here,  as  in  so  many 
matters  of  debate,  it  only  needs  for  the  question  to  be  truly  put,  to  be 
once  rightly  stated,  and  the  answer  at  once  is  given ; all  is  so  clear,  that 
the  possibility  of  its  remaining  a question  any  longer  has  for  ever  van- 
ished.* * * § As  was  the  case  before,  he  obtains  no  answer  from  them, — for 
they  will  not  approve,  and  they  cannot  gainsay.  “ As  on  other  occa- 
sions, (Matt.  xii.  11;  Luke  xiii.  15,)  the  Lord  brings  back  those  pre- 
sent to  their  own  experience,  and  lets  them  feel  the  keen  contradiction 
in  which  their  blame  of  Christ’s  free  work  of  love  sets  them  with  them- 
selves, in  that,  where  their  worldly  interests  were  at  hazard,  they  did 
that  very  thing  whereof  they  made  now  an  occasion  against  him.”f  We 
may  observe,  that  as  in  that  other  case  where  the  woman  was  bound , he 
adduces  the  example  of  unbinding  a beast,  (Luke  xiii.  15,) — so  in  this, 
where  the  man  was  dropsical,  suffering,  that  is,  from  water,  the  example 
he  adduces  has  its  equal  fitness.^  “ You  grudge  that  I should  deli- 
ver this  man  upon  this  day  from  the  water  that  is  choking  him,  yet  if 
the  same  danger  from  water  threatened  one  of  your  beasts,  an  ass  or  an 
o£,§  you  would  make  no  scruple  of  extricating  it  on  the  Sabbath  from 


* Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  1.  4,  c.  12):  Adimplevit  enim  et  hie  legem,  dum  con- 
ditionem  interpretatur  ejus,  dum  operum  differentiam  illuminat,  dum  facit  quae  Lex 
de  Sabbati  feriis  excipit,  dum  ipsum  Sabbati  diem  benedictione  Patris  a primordio 
sanctum,  benefactione  su&  efficit  sanctiorem,  in  quo  scilicet  divina  praesidia  ministrabat. 

f Olshatjsen. 

X So  Augustine  ( Qucest.  Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  29):  Congruenter  hydropicum  animali 
quod  cecidit  in  puteum,  comparavit : humore  enim  laborabat ; sicut  et  illam  mulierem 
quam  decern  et  octo  annis  alligatam  dixerat. . . .comparavit  jumento  quod  solvitur  ut 
ad  aquam  ducatur.  Grotius : Hydropicum  submergendae  pecudi,  ut  rr/v  csvyKv'KTOvcav 
pecudi  vinctae,  comparavit. 

§ There  are  very  Considerable  authorities  for,  instead  of  ovog,  reading  vioq,  which 


MAN  WITH  A DEOPSY. 


265 


the  dangers  which  threatened  it;  how'  much  then  is  a man  better  than 
a beast  V9  “ And  they  could  not  answer  him  again  to  these  things 
they  were  silenced,  that  is,  but  not  convinced.  The  truth,  which  did 
not  win  them,  did  that  which  alone  else  it  could  do,  exasperated  them 
the  more : and  they  replied  nothing,  biding  their  time,  (see  Matt, 
xii.  14.) 

Mill  and  Wetstein  favor,  and  -which  Chrysostom  (see  Cramer’s  Catena , in  loc.)  ap- 
pears to  have  read  in  his  copy  ; yet  the  internal  connection  seems  decisive  in  favor 
of  the  other  reading.  Christ  is  arguing  from  the  less  to  the  greater : “ You  will 
save  a comparatively  worthless  beast,  do  you  murmur  when  I save  a man?”  We 
have  the  ox  and  the  ass  set  together  as  liable  to  this  accident  of  falling  into  a pit; 
Exod.  xxi.  33. 

14 


XXII. 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  TEN  LEPERS. 


Luke  xvii.  11 — 19. 

The  Jews  that  dwelt  in  Galilee  very  commonly  in  their  necessary  jour- 
neys to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem  took  the  longer  route,  which  led  them 
across  the  Jordan,  and  through  the  region  of  Per  sea,  the  Gilead  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  so  they  might  avoid  the  vexations  and  annoyances 
and  even  worse  outrages  which  they  sometimes  met  in  passing  through 
the  unfriendly  land  of  the  Samaritans.*  For  these,  always  unfriendly, 
would  naturally  he  most  unfriendly  of  all  to  those  that  were  travelling 
up  to  the  great  feasts  of  the  holy  city,  and  were  thus  giving  witness  in 
act  against  the  will-worship  of  Mount  Gerizim,  and  the  temple  of  Sa- 
maria in  which  no  presence  of  God  dwelt.  It  is  generally  understood 
that  now,  despite  these  vexations  and  the  discomforts  of  that  inhospitable 
route,  (see  Luke  ix.  51 — 56;  John  iv.  9,)  our  Lord,  with  the  band  of 
his  disciples,  on  this  his  last  journey  to  the  holy  city,  took  the  directer 
and  shorter  way  which  led  him  straight  from  Galilee  through  the  midst 
of  Samaria  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  certain  that  the  words  of  the  original 
may  bear  this  meaning,  yet  not  the  less  I should  understand  the  Evan- 
gelist to  say  that  the  Lord  passed  between  these  two  regions,  having, 
that  is,  one  on  his  right  hand,  the  other  on  his  left,  and  skirting 
them  both.  This  explains  the  mention  of  Samaria  first,  which  in  the 
ordinary  explanation  of  the  words  is  almost  inexplicable.  The  Lord 
travelled  due  eastward  towards  J ordan,  having  Galilee  on  his  left  hand, 
and  Samaria,  which  is  therefore  first  named,  on  his  right : and  on  reach- 
ing the  river,  he  either  passed  over  it  at  Scythopolis,  where  we  know 
there  was  a bridge,  recrossing  the  river  near  Jericho, f or  kept  on  the 

* Josephus  ( Antt 1.  20,  c.  6,  § 1)  gives  an  account  of  the  massacre  by  the  Sama- 
ritans of  a great  number  of  Galilsean  pilgrims,  which  happened  a little  later  than  this. 

f So  Wetstein : Non  via  rect&  et  brevissima  a septentrione  versus  meridiem  per 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  TEN  LEPEES. 


267 


western  bank  till  he  reached  that  city,  where  presently  we  find  him, 
(xviii.  35.) 

“ And  as  he  entered  into  a certain • village , there  met  him  ten  men  that 
were  lepers .”  Their  common  misery  had  drawn  them  together ; (2  Kin. 
vii.  3;)  nay,  had  even  caused  them  to  forget  the  fierce  national  an- 
tipathy which  reigned,  between  Jew  and  Samaritan.  In  this  border 
land  too  it  was  more  natural  than  elsewhere  that  they  should  find  them- 
selves in  one  company,  and  thus  a Samaritan  had  found  admission  into 
this  forlorn  assembly.  There  has  been  already  occasion  to  speak  of  the 
nature  and  meaning  of  leprosy  in  the  Law  of  Moses ; that  it  was  the 
outward  symbol  of  sin  in  its  deepest  malignity, — of  sin  therefore  as  in- 
volving entire  separation  from  God ; not  of  spiritual  sickness  only,  but 
spiritual  death,  since  absolute  separation  from  the  one  fountain  of  life 
must  needs  be  no  less.  These  lepers,  in  obedience  to  the  command- 
ment, “ stood  afar  off;”  and  out  of  a deep  sense  of  their  misery,  yet  not 
without  hope  that  a Healer  was  at  hand,  u lifted  up  their  voices  and  said , 
Jesus , Master  * have  mercy  on  us!”  They  were  now  in  earnest  to  receive 
the  mercy,  however  at  a later  period  they  were  slack  in  giving  thanks 
for  it. 

Wonderful  is  it  and  most  instructive  to  observe  the  differences  in 
our  Lord’s  dealing  with  the  different  sufferers  and  mourners  that  are 
brought  in  contact  with  him ; how  the  Physician,  who  is  all  wisdom 
and  all  tenderness,  varies  his  treatment  for  the  varying  needs  of  his 
patients ; how  he  seems  to  resist  a strong  faith,  that  he  may  make  it 
stronger  yet ; how  he  meets  a weak  faith,  lest  it  should  prove  altogether 
too  weak  in  the  trial ; how  one  he  forgives  first,  and  heals  after ; and 
another,  whose  heart  could  only  be  softened  by  first  receiving  an  earthly 
benefit,  he  first  heals  and  then  pardons.  There  is  here,  too,  no  doubt  a 
reason  why  these  ten  are  dismissed  as  yet  uncleansed,  and  bidden  to  go 
show  themselves  to  the  priests ; while  that  other,  whose  healing  was 
before  recorded,  is  first  cleansed,  and  not  till  afterwards  bidden  to  pre- 
sent himself  in  the  temple.  Doubtless  there  was  here  a keener  trial  of 
their  faith.  While  as  yet  there  w~ere  no  signs  of  restoration  upon  them, 
they  were  bidden  to  do  that,  which  implied  they  were  perfectly  cleansed, 
to  take  a journey,  which  would  have  been  ridiculous,  a labor  in  vain, 
unless  Christ’s  words  and  promise  proved  true.  In  their  prompt  going 

Samariticam  regionem  iter  fecit,  sed  cum  confinia  Samarise  et  Galilsese  venisset,  ab 
itinere  deflexit  versus  orientem,  ita  ut  Samariam  ad  dextram,  Galilseam  ad  sinistram 
baberet ; et  Jordanem  Scythopoli,  ubi  pons  erat,  videtur  transiisse,  et  juxta  ripam 
Jordanis  in  Peraea  descendisse,  donee  e regione  Jerichuntis  iterum  trajiceret. 

* ’Etuotutci.  The  word  is  peculiar  to  St.  Luke,  (v.  5 ; viii.  24,  45 ; ix.  33,  49.) 
It  is  instead  of  the  Kvpie  of  St.  Matthew. 


268 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  TEN  LEPERS. 


was  an  evident  proof  that  there  were  in  them  weak  beginnings  of  faith, 
though  these,  in  the  greater  number,  came  to  nothing,  and  brought  no 
fruit  to  perfection.* * * §  For  they  could  not  have  thought  that  they  were 
sent  to  the  priests  as  though  these  should  heal  them,  since  they  must 
have  well  known  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  priests’  functions  to  cure, 
but  only  to  declare  cured ; that  these  cleansed,  not  in  the  sense  of  rid- 
ding men  of  their  disease;  but,  when  their  sickness  had  disappeared, 
restoring  them  with  ceremonial  washings  and  offerings  to  the  fellowship 
of  the  congregation.  There  was  also  here  a greater  temptation  to  ingra- 
titude. When  they  first  felt  and  found  their  benefit,  their  benefactor 
was  not  immediately  before  them,  so  that  it  should  be  an  easy  thing,  a 
costless  effort,  to  return  thanks  to  him : but  they  were,  probably,  already 
out  of  his  sight,  and  some  little  way  upon  their  journey  ;f  we  know  not 
how  far,  for  we  are  only  told,  that  “ as  they  went  J they  were  cleansed .” 

Some,  indeed,  suppose  that  this  returning  of  the  Samaritan  to  give 
thanks,  did  not  take  place  till  after  he  had  accomplished  all  which  was 
commanded  him;  that  he  had  been  at  Jerusalem — that  he  had  offered 
his  gift — that  he  had  been  pronounced  clean — and,  this  his  first  duty 
accomplished,  that  he  returned  to  render  due  thanks  to  his  benefactor ; 
and  that  so  the  sacred  narrative  leaps  over  a large  space  of  time  and 
many  intermediate  events  for  the  purpose  of  connecting  together  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  this  history.§  But  certainly  the  impression 

* Calvin : Quamvis  enim  foetidam  a dime  scabiem  in  carne  sua  conspiciant,  simul 
tamen  ac  jussi  sunt  se  ostendere  sacerdotibus,  parere  non  detrectant.  Adde  quod 
nunquam,  nisi  fidei  impulsu,  profecti  essent  ad  sacerdotes : ridiculum  enim  fuisset  ad 
testandem  suam  munditiem,  leprae  judicibus  se  offere,  nisi  pluris  illis  fuisset  Christi 
promissio,  quam  praesens  morbi  sui  intuitus.  Visibilem  in  carne  sua  lepram  gestant, 
unico  tamen  Christi  verbo  confisi  mundos  se  profiteri  non  dubitant : negari  igitur  non 
potest  eorum  cordibus  insitum  fuisse  aliquod  fidei  semen  . . . Quo  magis  timendum 
est,  fle  et  nobis  contingat  scintillas  fidei  in  nobis  micantes  extinguere. 

f Calvin  gives  another  reason,  besides  the  trouble,  why  they  did  not  return : lit 
morbi  memoriam  extinguerent  furtim  elapsi  sunt. 

f;  ¥e  learn  from  Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.  1.  4,  c.  35)  that  the  Gnostic  Marcion 
saw  in  this  healing  of  the  lepers  by  the  way,  this  taking,  upon  Christ’s  part,  of  the 
work  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Levitical  priests,  a slight  cast,  and  intended  to  be  cast, 
by  him  on  the  Mosaic  institutions:  Hie  Christum  aemulum  [Legis]  affirmat  prseveni- 
entem  aolennia  Legis  etiam  in  curatione  decern  leprosorum,  quos  tantummodo  ire 
jussos  ut  se  ostenderent  sacerdotibus,  in  itinere  purgavit,  sine  tactu  jam  et  sine  verbo, 
tacita  potestate,  et  sola  voluntate ; and  again,  Quasi  Legis  illusor,  ut  in  itinere  curatis 
ostenderet  nihil  esse  Legem  cum  ipsis  sacerdotibus.  It  is  needless  to  observe  that 
there  was  no  taking  of  the  work  out  of  their  hands,  since  the  work  of  the  priests 
was  not  to  cleanse,  but  to  pronounce  clean. 

§ This  is  Calvin’s  view,  although  he  is  not  strong  on  it : Mihi  tamen  magis  pro- 
babile  est,  non  nisi  audito  sacerdotis  judicio  ad  gratias  agendas  venisse  . . . Nisi  fort6 


THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  TEN  LEPERS. 


269 


which  the  narrative  leaves  is  different; — that,  having  advanced  some 
very  little  way  on  their  commanded  journey,  so  little  that  no  time  would 
have  been  really  lost  by  their  return,  perhaps  in  the  very  village  itself, 
they  perceived  what  had  taken  place  in  them — that  they  were  healed ; 
and  then  this  one  returned  in  the  fulness  of  a grateful  heart  to  give 
glory  to  God,  and  thanks  to  his  great  Healer  and  Saviour ; like  the  Sy- 
rian Naaman,  who  when  delivered  from  the  same  disease,  came  back 
with  all  his  company,  beseeching  the  man  of  God  to  take  a blessing  at 
his  hands ; (2  Kin.  v.  15  ;)  the  others  meanwhile  enduring  to  carry  away 
the  benefit  without  one  thankful  acknowledgment  rendered  unto  him 
who  was  its  author  and  its  source,  and  to  whose  feet  the  slightest  labor 
would  have  brought  them.  A sin  only  too  common ! for  as  Bishop 
Sanderson  says,  with  allusion  to  their  former  crying:  “We  open  our 
mouths  wide  till  he  open  his  hand ; but  after,  as  if  the  filling  of  our 
mouths  were  the  stopping  of  our  throats,  so  are  we  speechless  and  heart- 
less.”* 

It  gives  a special  significance  to  this  miracle,  and  to  its  place  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  the  Gospel  for  the  heathen,  that  this  thankful  one 
should  have  been  no  other  than  a Samaritan,  a stranger  therefore  by 
birth  to  the  covenants  of  promise,  while  the  nine  unthankful  were  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham.  Thus  there  spoke  out  in  this  circumstance  that  the 
Gentiles,  (for  this  Samaritan  was  no  better,)  were  not  excluded  from  the 
kingdom  of  God,  nay,  rather  might  find  a place  in  it  before  others  who 
by  nature  and  birth  were  children  of  the  kingdom ; that  the  ingratitude 
of  these  might  exclude  them,  while  the  faith  of  those  might  give  to 
them  an  abundant  entrance  into  all  its  blessings. 

Even  the  Saviour  himself,  who  knew  what  was  in  man,  who  had  al- 
ready had  so  many  proofs  of  the  ingratitude  of  men,  seems  to  have  mar- 
velled here:  for  he  asks,  “ Were  there  not  ten  cleansed  ?\  but  where  are 
the  nine  ? There  are  not  found  that  returned  to  give  glory  to  God , save 
this  stranger .”  Him  he  dismisses  with  a new  and  a better  blessing ; 
the  first  had  reached  but  to  the  healing  of  his  body,  and  that  he  had  in 
common  with  the  unthankful  nine : but  gratitude  for  a lower  mercy  ob- 
tains for  him  a higher,  a peculiar  blessing,  which  is  singularly  his, 
which  reaches  not  merely  to  the  springs  of  bodily  health,  but  to  the  very 
fountains  of  his  spiritual  being.  These  also  are  healed ; that  which  the 

magis  placet  diversa  conjectura,  sitnul  ac  mundatum  se  vidit,  antequam  testimonium 
expeteret  a sacerdotibus,  ad  ipsum  auctorem  pio  et  sancto  ardore  correptum  venisse, 
ut  sacrificium  suum  a gratiarum  actione  inciperet. 

* Bernard : Importuni  ut  accipiant,  inquieti  donee  acceperint,  ubi  acceperint  in- 
grati.  Calvin : Sic  inopia  et  esuries  fidem  gignit,  quam  occidit  saturitas. 

f Or  rather,  “ W ere  not  the  ten  (ol  Sena)  cleansed  F 


270 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  TEN  LEPEKS. 


others  missed,  to  which  their  bodily  healing  should  have  led  them  up, 
he  has  obtained ; for  to  him  and  to  him  only  it  is  said,  “ Go  thy  way ; 
thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole 

It  is  difficult  not  to  be  struck  with  the  aptness  of  the  image  which 
this  history  supplies,  to  set  forth  the  condition  of  the  faithful  in  this 
world.  They  are  to  take  Christ’s  word  that  they  will  be  cleansed.  In 
Baptism  is  the  pledge  and  promise  and  the  initial  act  of  it  all.  And 
they  are  to  believe  this,  while  they  yet  feel  in  themselves  the  leprous 
taint  of  sin, — to  go  forward  in  faith,  being  confident  that  in  the  use  of 
his  Word,  and  of  his  Sacraments,  slight  as  they  may  seem  to  meet  and 
overcome  such  mighty  mischiefs,  they  will  find  that  health,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  sure  word  of  promise  is  already  theirs ; and  as  they  go, 
believing  this  word,  using  these  means,  they  are  healed.  And  for  them, 
too,  a warning  is  here — that  they  forget  not  the  purging  of  their  old  sins 
— nor  what  those  sins  were,  how  hideous,  how  loathsome ; in  this  way 
sinning  like  these  nine,  who  perhaps  did  not  return  because  they  would 
fain  have  obliterated  the  very  memory  of  the  fact  that  they  had  ever 
been  those  lepers.  There  is  a warning  here  for  the  spiritually  cleansed, 
that  they  keep  in  memory  the  times  of  their  past  anguish  of  soul, — the 
times  when  every  thing  seemed  defiled  to  them,  and  they  to  every  thing , 
when  they  saw  themselves  as  “unclean,  unclean,”  shut  out  from  all 
holy  fellowship  of  God  and  man,  and  cried  out  in  their  anguish,  “ Jesus , 
Master , have  mercy  on  us” — a warning  to  them  that  now  they  are  at 
peace,  they  forget  not  the  time  of  their  trouble,  but  that  the  remem- 
brance of  the  absolving  cleansing  word  which  was  spoken  to  them  then, 
with  each  new  consciousness  of  a realized  deliverance  from  the  power 
of  sin,  bring  them  to  the  Saviour’s  feet,  giving  glory  to  God  by  him ; 
lest  failing  in  this,  they  be  worse  than  even  these  unthankful  nine.  Tor 
they  carried  away  only  temporal  mercies  unacknowledged;  but  we 
should  in  that  case  be  seeking  to  carry  away  spiritual;  though  that 
never  could  truly  be,  since  the  spiritual  mercy  which  is  not  evermore 


* Calvin : Servandi  verbum  quidam  interpretes  ad  carnis  munditiem  restringunt ; 
verum  si  ita  est,  quum  vivam  in  hoc  Samaritano  fidem  commendet  Christus,  quseri 
potest  quomodo  servati  fuerint  alii  novem ; nam  eadem  promised  omnibus  sanitas 
obtigit.  Sicergo  habendum  est  Christum  hie  aliter  sestimasse  donum  Dei  quam  soleant 
profani  homines,  nempe  tanquam  salutare  paterni  amoris  symbolum  vel  pignus.  Sanati 
fuerunt  novem  leprosi,  sed  quia  Dei  gratiam  impi&  obliterant,  ipsam  sanitatem  inficit 
et  contaminat  eorum  ingratitudo,  ut  quam  decebat  utilitatem  ex  ea  non  precipiant. 
Sola  igitur  tides  dona  Dei  nobis  sanctificat,  ut  pura  sint,  et  cum  legitimo  usa  conjuncta 
in  salutem  nobis  cedant . . . Servatus  est  sua  fide  Samaritanus.  Quomodo  ? cert6  non 
ideo  tantum,  quod  a lepra  curatus  sit  (nam  hoc  et  reliquis  commune  erat),  sed  quia  in 
numerum  filiorum  Dei  acceptus  est,ut  paterni  amoris  tessaram  ex  ejus  manu  acciperet. 


THE  CLEANSING-  OF  THE  TEN  LEPERS. 


271 


referred  to  its  author,  does  sooner  or  later  inevitably  cease  from  him 
who  would  seek  on  any  other  condition  to  retain  it.* 

* Chemnitz  {Harm.  Evang .,  c.  125):  Remittit  nos  Filius  Dei  ad  ministerium 
Yerbi  et  Sacramentorum  in  Ecclesia ; et  quemadmodum  hi  sanati  sunt  dum  iverunt, 
et  mandato  Christi  obtemperarunt,  ita  et  nos  dum  in  Ecclesia  Yerbum  Dei  audimus, 
absolutione  et  Sacramentis  utimur,  vult  nobis  Christus  peccata  remittere,  nos  sanare, 
ut  in  ccelesti  Jerusalem  mundi  coram  Deo  compareamus . . . Omnes  nati  sumus  filii 
irae,  in  baptismo  remittitur  nobis  ille  reatus,  sed  non  statim  in  coelos  abripimur : ve- 
rum  dicit  nobis  Ite,  ostendite  vos  sacerdotibus.  Leve  quid  ut  videtur  injungit.  Utut 
autem  leva*sit,  sequitur  tamen  enarrabile  bonum,  quia  is  qui  nobis  hoc  praecipit,  est 
omnipotens  Deus,  qui  ex  minimis  maxima  producere  potest.  Cf.  Augustine,  Qumt. 
Evang.,  L 2,  c.  40. 


XXIII. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DAUGHTER  OF  THE  SYROPHENICIAN  WOMAN. 


Matt.  xv.  21 — 28  ; Mark  vii.  24 — 30. 

It  is  not  probable  that  our  blessed  Lord  actually  overpassed  the  limits 
of  the  Jewish  land,  now  or  at  any  other  moment  of  his  earthly  ministry ; 
though  when  it  is  said  that  he  “ departed  into  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Si- 
don,”  this  may  seem  at  first  to  favor  such  a supposition.  St.  Mark, 
however,  tells  us  that  he  only  “ went  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,” 
and  the  true  meaning  which  even  St.  Matthew’s  words  will  abundantly 
bear,  is,  that  he  came  into  the  confines  of  that  heathen  land.*  The 
general  fitness  of  things,  and  more  especially  his  own  words  on  this  very 
occasion,  “ lam  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel .” 
would  make  it  extremely  unlikely  that  he  had  now  brought  his  healing 
presence  into  a heathen  land ; and,  moreover,  when  St.  Matthew  speaks 
of  the  “ woman  of  Canaan ” as  coming  out  of  that  district,  “ of  the  same 
coasts ,”  he  clearly  shows  that  he  has  no  other  intention  than  to  describe 
the  Lord  as  having  drawn  close  to  the  skirts  of  that  profane  land. 

Being  there,  he  “ entered  into  a house , and  would  have  no  man  know 
it but  as  the  ointment  bewrayeth  itself,  so  he  whose  Name  is  like 
ointment  poured  out,  “ could  not  be  hid;”  and  among  those  attracted  by 
its  sweetness,  was  a woman  of  that  country, — “ a woman  of  Canaan ,” 
as  St.  Matthew  terms  her,  “ a Greek , a Syrophenician,”  as  St.  Mark,f 

* Kuinoel  here : In  partes  Palsestinse  regioni  Tyriorum  et  Sidoniorum  finitimas. 
So  Exod.  xvi.  35,  elg  yepog  Trjg  $ OLvUrjg  (LXX.)  “ to  the  borders  of  Canaan.” 

f 'ZvK.otyoLVLKLGoa  the  best  manuscripts  have ; so  Lachmann ; and  not  'Lvpotyoiviaca, 
which  indeed  were  the  more  Greek  form,  yet  not  therefore  here  to  be  preferred,  but 
rather  the  contrary.  See  a learned  note  in  Grotius,  on  Matt.  xv.  22.  This  woman’s 
name,  according  to  the  Clementine  Homilies  (1.  2,  c.  19),  was  Justa,  where  legends  of 
her  later  life,  and  her  transition  from  heathenism  to  Judaism,  are  to  be  found. 


DAUGHTER  OF  THE  SYROPHENICIAN  WOMAN.  273 


meaning  by  the  first  term  to  describe  her  religion,  that  it  was  not  Jew 
ish  but  heathen ; by  the  second,  the  stock  of  which  she  came,  which  was 
even  that  accursed  stock  which  God  had  once  doomed  to  a total  excision, 
but  of  which  some  branches  had  been  spared  by  those  first  generations 
of  Israel  that  should  have  extirpated  them  root  and  branch.  Every 
thing,  therefore,  was  against  her;  yet  she  was  not  hindered  by  that 
every  thing  from  coming  and  craving  the  boon  that  her  soul  longed 
after.  She  had  heard  of  the  mighty  works  which  the  Saviour  of  Israel 
had  done : for  already  his  fame  had  gone  through  all  Syria ; so  that 
they  brought  unto  him,  besides  other  sick,  “those  which  were  possessed 
with  devils,  and  those  which  were  lunatic,  and  he  healed  them.”  (Matt, 
iv.  24.)  And  she  has  a boon  to  ask  for  her  daughter,  or  rather  indeed 
for  herself,  for  so  entirely  had  she  made  her  daughter’s  misery  her  awn, 
that  she  comes  saying,  “ Have  mercy  on  me , 0 Lord , thou  Son  of  David; 
my  daughter  is  grievously  vexed  with  a devil ;”  as  on  a later  occasion  the 
father  of  the  lunatic  child,  “ Have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us” 
(Mark  ix.  22.) 

But  very  different  she  finds  him  from  that  which  report  had  de- 
scribed him  to  her  ; for  that  spoke  of  him  as  the  merciful  Son  of  man, 
who  would  not  break  the  bruised  reed  nor  quench  the  smoking  flax,  who 
encouraged  every  weary  and  afflicted  soul  to  come  and  find  rest  with 
him.  He  who  of  himself  came  to  meet  the  needs  of  others,  withdrew 
himself  from  hers ; “ He  answered  her  not  a word”  In  the  language  of 
Chrysostom,  “The  Word  has  no  word  ; the  fountain  is  sealed;  the  phy- 
sician withholds  his  remedies ;”  until  at  last  the  disciples,  wearied  out 
with  her  long  entreaties,  and  seemingly  more  merciful  than  their  Lord, 
themselves  come  to  him,  making  intercessions  for  her  that  he  would 
grant  to  her  her  petition  and  send  her  away.  Yet  was  there  in  truth 
the  worm  of  selfishness  at  the  root  of  this  seemingly  greater  compassion 
of  theirs,  and  it  shows  itself  when  they  give  their  reason  why  he  should 
dismiss  her  with  the  boon  she  asks : u For  she  crieth  after  us;”  she  is 
making  a scene ; she  is  drawing  on  us  unwelcome  observation.  Theirs 
is  one  of  those  heartless  grantings  of  a request,  whereof  we  all  are  con- 
scious ; when  it  is  granted  out  of  no  love  to  the  suppliant,  but  to  leave 
undisturbed  the  peace  and  selfish  ease  of  him  from  whom  at  length  it  is 
extorted, — such  as  his  who  said,  “ Lest  by  her  continual  coming  she 
weary  me.”  Here,  as  so  often,  under  a seeming  severity  lurks  the  real 
love,  while  selfishness  hides  itself  under  the  mask  of  bounty.  But  these 
intercessors  meet  with  no  better  fortune  than  the  suppliant  herself ; and 
Christ  stops  their  mouths  with  words  unpromising  enough  for  her  suit : 

“ I am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel”  (Cf. 
Matt.  x.  5,  6.) 


86 


274 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DAUGHTEB 


But  in  what  sense  was  this  true  ? All  prophecy  which  went  before 
declared  that  in  him,  the  promised  Seed,  not  one  nation  only,  but  all 
nations  of  the  earth,  should  be  blest : he  himself  declared,  “ Other 
sheep  I have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold ; them  also  I must  bring,  and 
they  shall  hear  my  voice.”  (John  x.  16.)  It  has  happened  indeed  with 
others,  as  with  the  founders  of  false  religions,  that  as  success  increased, 
the  circle  of  their  vision  has  widened  ; and  they  who  meant  at  first  but 
to  give  a faith  to  their  nation,  have  aspired  at  last  to  give  one  to  the 
world,  But  here  all  must  have  been  known:  the  world- embracing 
reach  of  his  faith  was  contemplated  by  Christ  from  the  first.  In  what 
sense  then,  and  under  what  limitations,  could  it  be  said  with  truth  that 
he  was  not  sent  but  unto  Israel  only  ? Clearly  in  his  own  personal 
ministry.*  That,  for  wise  purposes  in  the  counsels  of  God,  was  to  be 
confined  to  his  own  nation ; and  every  departure  from  this  was,  and 
was  clearly  marked  as,  an  exception.  Here  and  there,  indeed,  he  gave 
preludes  of  the  coming  mercy  ;f  yet  before  the  Gentiles  should  glorify 
God  for  his  mercy,  Christ  was  first  to  be  “ a minister  of  the  circumcision 
for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers.” 
(Rom.  xv.  8,  9.)  It  was  only  as  it  were  by  a rebound  from  them  that 
the  grace  was  to  light  upon  the  heathen  world ; while  yet  that  issue, 
which  seemed  thus  accidental,  was  laid  deep  in  the  deepest  counsels  of 
God.  (Acts  xiii.  44 — 49 ; Rom.  xi.)  In  the  form  of  Christ’s  reply,  as 
St.  Mark  gives  it,  “ Let  the  children  first  he  filled the  refusal  does  not 
appear  so  absolute  and  final,  and  a glimpse  appears  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  blessing  will  pass  on  to  others,  when  as  many  of  these,  of 
“ the  children ,”  as  will,  have  accepted  it.  But  there,  too,  the  present 
repulse  is  absolute:  the  time  is. not  yet;  others  intermeddle  not  with 
the  meal,  till  the  children  have  had  enough. 

The  woman  hears  the  repulse,  which  the  disciples  who  had  ven- 
tured to  plead  for  her,  receive ; but  she  is  not  daunted  or  disheartened 
thereby.  Hitherto  she  had  been  crying  after  the  Lord,  and  at  a dis- 
tance ; but  now,  instead  of  being  put  further  still,  “ came  she  and  wor- 
shipped him , saying , Lord , help  me”  And  now  he  breaks  the  silence 

Augustine  (Serm.  H,  c.  2):  Hie  verborum  istorum  oritur  qusestio:  Unde  nos 
ad  ovile  Christi  de  gentibus  venimus,  si  non  est  missus  nisi  ad  oves  quae  perierunt 
domus  Israel  ? Quid  sibi  vult  liuj  ns  secreti  tam  alta  dispensatio,  ut  cum  Dominus 
sciret  quare  veniret,  utique  ut  Ecclesiam  haberet  in  omnibus  Gentibus,  non  se  mis- 
sum  dixerit,  nisi  ad  oves  quae  perierunt  domus  Israel  ? Intelligimus  ergo  praesen- 
tiam  corporis  sui,  nativitatem  suam,  exhibitionem  miraculorum,  virtutemque  resur- 
rectionis  in  illo  populo  eura  ostendere  debuisse.  Jerome  (Comm,  in  Mcitth.,  in  loe.) 
Perfectam  salutem  gentium  passionis  et  resurrectionis  tempori  reservabat. 

| Calvin : Praeludia  quaedam  dare  voluit  communis  misericordiae. 


OF  THE  SYROPHENICIAN  WOMAN, 


275 


which  hitherto  he  has  maintained  toward  her ; but  it  is  with  an  answer 
more  discomfortable  than  was  the  silence  itself : “ He  answered  and 
said , It  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread*  and  to  cast  it  to  dogs.” 
'‘’‘The  children ” are  of  course  the  Jews,  “the  children  of  the  king- 
dom.” (Matt.  viii.  12.)  He  who  spoke  so  sharply  to  them,  speaks  thus 
honorably  of  them  ; nor  is  there  any  contradiction  in  this : for  here  he 
is  speaking  of  the  position  which  God  has  given  them  in  his  kingdom ; 
there,  of  the  manner  in  which  they  have  realized  that  position.  On  the 
other  hand,  extreme  contempt  was  involved  in  the  title  of  dogf  given 
to  any  one,  it  being  remarkable  that  the  nobler  characteristics  of 
the  animal,  which  yet  were  not  unknown  to  antiquity,  are  never 
brought  out  in  Scripture.  (See  Deut.  xxxii.  18;  Job  xxx.  1;  1 Sam. 
xvii.  43;  xxiv.  15;  2 Sam.  iii.  8;  ix.  8;  xvi.  9;  2 Kin.  viii.  13; 
Matt.  vii.  6;  Phil.  iii.  2;  Rev.  xxii.  15.) 

This  at  length  would  have  been  enough  for  many ; and,  even  if  they 
had  persevered  thus  far,  now  at  least  they  would  have  gone  away  in  anger 
or  despair.  But  Hot  so  this  woman  ; she,  like  the  centurion,  and  under 
still  more  unfavorable  circumstances  than  his,  was  mighty  in  faith ; and 
from  the  very  word  which  seemed  to  make  most  against  her,  with  the 
ready  wit  of  faith,  she  drew  an  argument  in  her  own  favor.  She  en- 
tangled the  Lord,  himself  most  willing  thus  to  be  so  entangled,  in  his 
own  speech ; she  takes  the  sword  out  of  his  own  hand,  with  that  sword 
to  overcome  him  “Truth,  Lord : yet  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  which 
fall  from  their  masters'  table!  Upon  these  words  Luther,  who  has 
dwelt  on  all  the  circumstances  of  this  little  history  with  a peculiar  love, 
and  seems  never  weary  of  extolling  the  mighty  faith  of  this  woman,  ex- 

* Maldonatus : Habent  canes  panera  suum  minus  delicatum,  quam,  filii ; res  natu- 
rales,  Sol,  Luna,  pluvia,  et  cetera  idem  genus  canum,  id  est  Gentilium,  panis  sunt; 
quae  providentia  quidem  Dei,  sed  generali  minusque  accurata  dispensantur,  et  omni- 
bus in  commune,  sicut  porcis  glandes,  projiciuntur : Evangelica  gratia,  quae  supra 
naturam  est,  panis  est  filiorum  non  projiciendus  temere,  sed  majore  consilio  rationeque 
distribuendus,  # 

f Many  as  Maldonatus  assume  that  there  is  yet  a further  aggravation  of  the  con- 
tempt in  the  nvvapioLc  (the  Vulgate,  oatellis),  not  even  dogs,  but  whelps.  Yet  rather 
I should  be  inclined  to  say  with  Olshausen  that  there  is  in  the  diminutive  a slight 
mitigation  of  the  exceeding  sharpness  of  the  words  ; yet  not  so  but  that  they 
remain  most  severe  and  cutting  still.  Calvin  brings  out  well  the  force  of  the  (laAeiv. 
Projiciendi  verbo  utitur  significando  non  bene  locari,  quod  Ecclesise  Dei  ablatum 
profanis  liominib.us  vulgatur.  Clarius  exprimitur  consilium  Christi  apud  Marcum  v. 
27,  ubi  liabetur,  Sine  prius  saturari  filios.  Nam  Cananoeam  admonet  praepostere 
facere,  quae  velut  in  media  ccena  in  mensam  involat. 

\ Corn,  a Lapide : Christum  suis  verbis  irretit,  comprehendit,  et  capit.  Rationem 
contra  se  factamin  ipsum  leniter  retorquet. 


276 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DAUGHTER 


claims,  “Was  not  that  a master-stroke?  she  snares  Christ  in  his  own 
words.”  And  oftentimes  he  sets  this  Canaanitish  woman  before  each 
troubled  and  fainting  heart,  that  it  may  learn  from  her  how  to  wring  a 
Yea  from  God’s  Nay;  or  rather,  how  to  hear  the  deep-hidden  Yea, 
which  many  times  lies  in  his  seeming  Nay.  “Like  her,  thou  must 
give  God  right  in  all  he  says  against  thee,  and  yet  must  not  stand  off 
from  praying,  till  thou  overcomest  as  she  overcame,  till  thou  hast  turned 
the  very  charges  made  against  thee  into  arguments  and  proofs  of  thy 
need, — till  thou  too  hast  taken  Christ  in  his  own  words.” 

Our  translation  of  the  woman’s  answer  is  not,  however,  altogether 
satisfactory.  Eor  indeed  she  consents  to  Christ’s  declaration,  not  imme- 
diately to  make  exception  against  the  conclusion  which  she  draws  from 
it,  but  to  show  how  in  that  very  declaration  is  involved  the  granting  of 
her  petition.*  “ Saidest  thou  dogs  ? it  is  well ; I accept  the  title  and  the 
place : for  the  dogs  have  a portion  of  the  meal, — not  the  first,  not  the 
children’s  portion,  but  a portion  still, — the  crumbs  which  fall  from  the 
table.  In  this  very  statement  of  the  case  thou  bringest  us  heathen,  thou 
bringest  me,  within  the  circle  of  the  blessings  which  God,  the  great 
householder,  is  ever  dispensing  to  his  family.  We  also  belong  to  his 
household,  though  we  occupy  but  the  lowest  place  in  it.  According  to 
thine  own  showing,  I am  not  wholly  an  alien,  and  therefore  I will  abide 
by  this  name,  and  will  claim  from  thee  all  its  consequences.”  By  the 
“ masters ” she  does  not  mean  the  Jews,  which  is  Chrysostom’s  mistake; 
for  thus  the  whole  image  would  be  disturbed ; they  are  “ the  children 
but  by  the  “ masters ,”  she  would  signify  God,  using  the  plural  on  account 
of  the  plural  “ dogs”  which  Christ  had  used  before  ; in  the  same  way  as 
Christ  himself  says,  “ Then  the  sons  are  free,”  (Matt.  xvii.  29,)  having 
spoken  plurally  before  of  “ the  kings  of  the  earth,”  while  yet  it  is  only  the 

* There  is  nothing  adversative  in  ical  ydg  = etenim  (see  Passow),  which  would 
justify  the  “yet”  of  our  version,  or  the  “nevertheless”  of  Tyndale’s.  Wiclifs, 
Cranmer’s,  the  Genevese,  and  Rhemish  versions  have  the  right  translations : thus  the 
Genevese,  “ Truth,  Lord,  for  indeed  the  whelps  eat  of  the  crumbs in  this  following 
the  Yulgate,  Etiam,  Domine,  nam  et  catelli  edunt.  So  De  Wette : Ya,  Herr  ! denn 
es  essen  ya  die  Hunde.  Maldonatus,  always  acute,  and  whose  merits  as  an  inter- 
preter, setting  apart  his  bitter  polemical  spirit,  deserve  the  highest  recognition,  has 
exactly  caught  the  meaning  of  her  reply : Hoc  est  quod  volo,  me  esse  canem,  nam  et 
catelli  comedunt  de  micis  quae  cadunt  de  mensa  dominorum  suorum.  The  “ crumbs ” 
here  alluded  to  are  something  more  than  that  which  should  accidentally  fall  from  the 
table ; for  it  was  the  custom  during  eating  to  use,  instead  of  a napkin,  the  soft  white 
part  of  the  bread  (uTco/naydaMa),  which,  having  thus  used,  they  threw  to  the  dogs. 
Eustathius,  Efc  o rag  xelpag  aTcoyarTo/ievoi,  dra  nvolv  e{3a?.lov.  (See  Becker’s 
Oharikles,  v.  1,  p.  431.) 


or  THE  SYROPHENICIAN  WOMAN. 


m 


one  Son,  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  whom  he  has  in  his  eye.*  He, 
the  great  Master  and  Lord,  spreads  a table,  and  all  that  depend  on  him, 
in  their  place  and  order  are  satisfied  from  it, — the  children  at  the  table, 
the  dogs  beneath  the  table.  There  is  in  her  statement  something  like 
the  Prodigal’s  petition,  “ Make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants,” — a re- 
cognition of  diverse  relations,  some  closer,  some  more  distant,  in  which 
divers  persons  stand  to  God, — yet  all  blest,  who,  whether  in  a nearer  or 
remoter  station,  are  satisfied  from  his  hands. 

And  now  she  has  conquered.  She  who  before  heard  only  those 
words  of  a seeming  contempt,  now  hears  words  of  a most  gracious  com- 
mendation,— words  of  which  the  like  are  recorded  as  spoken  but  to  one 
other  in  all  the  Gospel  history : “ 0 woman,  great  is  thy  faith  /”  He 
who  at  first  seemed  as  though  he  would  have  denied  her  the  smallest 
boon,  now  opens  to  her  the  full  treasure-house  of  his  grace,  and  bids  her 
to  help  herself,  to  carry  away  what  she  will : “ Be  it  unto  thee  even  as 
thou  wilt.”  He  had  shown  to  her  for  a while,  like  Joseph  to  his  brethren, 
the  aspect  of  severity;  but,  like  Joseph,  he  could  not  maintain  it  long, 
— or  rather  he  would  not  maintain  it  an  instant  longer  than  it  was  need- 
ful, and  after  that  word  of  hers,  that  mighty  word  of  an  undaunted  faith, 
it  was  needful  no  more : in  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  For  this  saying  go 
thy  way  ; the  devil  is  gone  out  of  thy  daughter .” 

Like  the  centurion  at  Capernaum,  like  the  nobleman  at  Cana,  she 
made  proof  that  his  word  was  potent,  whether  spoken  far  off  or  near. 
Her  child,  indeed,  was  at  a distance ; but  she  offered  in  her  faith  a 
channel  of  communication  between  it  and  Christ.  With  one  hand  of 
that  faith  she  had  held  on  to  that  Lord  in  whom  all  healing  grace  was 
stored,  with  the  other  to  her  suffering  child, — thus  herself  a living  con- 
ductor by  which  the  power  of  Christ  might  run  like  an  electric  flash  from 
him  to  her  beloved.  “ And  when  she  was  come  to  her  house , she  found 
the  devil  gone  out,  and  her  daughter  laid  upon  the  bedf  weak  and 
exhausted  as  it  would  appear  from  the  paroxysms  of  the  spirit’s  going 
out : or,  the  circumstance  which  last  is  mentioned  may  indicate  only 
that  she  was  now  taking  that  quiet  rest,  which  hitherto  the  evil  spirit 
had  not  allowed.  It  will  answer  so  to  the  u clothed  and  in  his  right 
mind,”  (Luke  viii.  30,)  of  another  who  had  been  tormented  in  the 
same  way. 

But  the  interesting  question  remains,  Why  this  bitterness  was  not 
spared  her,  why  the  Lord  should  have  presented  himself  under  so  differ- 
ent an  aspect  to  her,  and  to  most  other  suppliants  ? Sometimes  he  an- 

* Maldonatus : Loquitur  pluraliter  propter  canes,  quorum  suum  quisque  dominurc 

habet. 


278 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  DAUGHTER 


ticipated  their  needs,  “Wilt  thou  be  made  whole?”  (John  v.  6,)  or  if 
not  so,  he  who  was  waiting  to  be  gracious  required  not  to  be  twice  asked 
for  his  blessings.  Why  was  it  that  in  this  case,  to  use  the  words  of  an 
old  divine,  Christ  “ stayed  long,  wrestling  with  her  faith,  and  shaking 
and  trying  whether  it  were  fast-rooted”  or  no?  Doubtless  because  he 
knew  that  it  was  a faith  which  would  stand  the  proof,  and  that  she 
would  come  out  victorious  from  this  sore  trial ; and  not  only  so,  but 
with  a stronger,  higher,  purer  faith  than  if  she  had  borne  away  her 
blessing  at  once.  Now  she  has  learned,  as  then  she  never  could  have 
learned,  that  men  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to  faint ; that,  with 
God,  to  delay  a boon  is  not  therefore  to  deny  it.  She  had  learned  the 
lesson  which  Moses  must  have  learned,  when  “ the  Lord  met  him,  and 
sought  to  kill  him,”  (Exod.  vi.  24 ;)  she  won  the  strength  which  Jacob 
had  won  before,  from  his  night-long  struggle  with  the  Angel.  There  is, 
indeed,  a remarkable  analogy  between  this  history  and  that  last.  (Gen. 
xxxii.  24 — 32.)  There  as  here,  there  is  the  same  persevering  struggle 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  same  persevering  refusal  on  the  other ; there,  as 
here,  the  stronger  is  at  last  overcome  by  the  weaker.  God  himself 
yields  to  the  might  of  -faith  and  prayer ; for  a later  prophet,  interpreting 
that  mysterious  struggle,  tells  us  the  weapons  which  the  patriarch 
wielded : “ He  wept  and  made  supplication  unto  him,”  connecting  with 
this  the  fact  that  “he  had  power  over  the  angel  and  prevailed.”  (Hos. 
xii.  3,  4.)  The  two  histories,  indeed,  only  stand  out  in  their  full  re- 
semblance, when  we  keep  in  mind  that  the  angel  there,  the  Angel  of  the 
covenant,  was  no  other  than  that  Word,  who,  now  incarnate*  “blest” 
this  woman  at  last,  as  he  had  blest  at  length  Jacob  at  Peniel, — in  each 
case  rewarding  thus  a faith  which  had  said,  “ I will  not  let  thee  go,  ex- 
cept thou  bless  me.” 

Yet,  when  we  thus  speak  of  man  overcoming  God,  we  must  never, 
of  course,  for  an  instant  lose  sight  of  this,  that  the  power  whereby  he 
overcomes  the  resistance  of  God,  is  itself  a power  supplied  by  God.  All 
that  is  man’s  is  the  faith  or  the  emptiness  of  self,  which  enables  him  to 
appropriate  and  make  so  largely  his  own  the  fulness  and  power  of  God  ; 
so  that  here  also  that  word  comes  true,  “ Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit, 
for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  Thus  when  St.  Paul  (Col.  i.  29) 
speaks  of  himself  under  an  image  which  rested  originally  on  Jacob’s 
struggle,  if  there  was  not  a direct  allusion  to  it  in  the  apostla’s  mind,  as 
striving  for  the  Colossi ans,  striving,!  that  is,  with  God  in  prayer,  (see  iv. 

* This  has  been  doubted  by  some ; but  see  the  younger  Vitringa’s  Diss.  De  Luc- 
td  Jacobi,  p.  18,  seq.,  in  his  Diss.  Sac.,  and  Deyling’s  Obss.  Sac.,  p.  827,  seq. 

f ’kyovi^ouEvog.  Cf.  Col.  ii.  1,  where  Grotius  says  rightly:  Per  dydva  intelligit 
non  sollicitudinem  tantum,  sed  preces  assiduas. 


OF  THE  SYROPHENICIAN  WOMAN. 


279 


12,)  he  immediately  adds,  “ according  to  his  working  which  worketh  in 
me  mightily.” 

We  may  observe,  in  conclusion,  that  we  have  three  ascending  de- 
grees of  faith,  as  it  manifests  itself  in  the  breaking  through!  of  hin- 
derances  which  would  keep  from  Christ,  in  the  paralytic,  (Mark  ii.  4 ;) 
the  blind  man  at  Jericho,  (Mark  x.  48 ;)  and  this  woman  of  Canaan. 
The  paralytic  broke  through  the  outward  hinderances,  the  obstacles  of 
things  external ; blind  Bartimseus  through  the  hinderances  opposed  by  his 
fellow-men ; but  this  woman,  more  heroically  than  all,  through  apparent 
hinderances  even  from  Christ  himself.  These,  in  their  seeming  weakness, 
were  the  three  mighty  ones,  not  of  David,  but  of  David’s  Son,  that 
broke  through  opposing  hosts,  until  they  could  draw  living  water  from 
wells  of  salvation.  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  16.) 


XXIV. 


THE  HEALING  OF  ONE  DEAF  AND  DUMB. 


Make  vii.  31 — 37. 

St.  Matthew  tells  us  in  general  terms  how  when  the  Lord  had  returned 
from  those  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  unto  the  sea  of  Galilee,  “ great- 
multitudes  came  unto  him,  having  with  them  those  that  were  lame, 
blind,  dumb,  maimed,*  and  many  others,  and  cast  them  down  at  Jesus’ 
feet,  and  he  healed  them (xv.  30 ;)  but  out  of  this  multitude  of  cures 
St.  Mark  selects  one  to  relate  more  in  detail,  and  this,  no  doubt,  because 
it  was  signalized  by  some  circumstances  not  usual  in  other  like  cases  of 
healing.  It  was  that  of  a man  deaf  and  having  an  impediment  in  his 
speech,  one  who,  if  he  was  not  altogether  dumb,  was  yet  probably  inca- 
pable of  making  any  articulate  sounds. f His  case  differs,  apparently, 

* KvPiXog,  properly,  crippled  or  maimed  in  the  hand , as  Jerome  (in  loc.)  observes : 
Quomodo  claudus  dicitur,  qui  uno  claudicat  pede,  sic  nvl2.bg  appellatur,  qui  unam 
manurn  debilem  habet.  Nos  proprietatem  hujus  verbi  non  lmbemus.  We  are  equally 
without  a single  word  which  is  its  equivalent.  At  Matthew  xviii.  8,  it  is  evidently 
maimed  of  the  hand.  Yet  here  there  may  well  be  a question  whether  it  means  so  much, 
for  though,  of  course,  it  lay  in  the  power  of  Christ  to  supply  a lost  limb,  yet  we  no- 
where read  in  detail  of  any  miracle  of  this  kind,  and  such  a one  seems  contrary  to  the 
analogy  of  his  whole  work  of  healing : for  he  was  come  now,  a Redeemer,  that  is,  a 
setter  free  of  man  in  his  body  and  in  his  soul  from  the  alien  power  which  held  him  in 
bondage — a Redeemer,  but, not  a Creator:  even  in  his  miracles  which  approach 
nearest  to  creation,  he  ever  assumes  a substratum  on  which  to  work ; water,  to  turn 
into  wine ; bread  to  multiply  by  his  power ; and  in  man’s  case  we  may  presume  the 
same.  It  is  no  limitation  of  this  divine  power  of  Christ,  to  suppose  that  it  had  thus 
its  law,  according  to  which  it  wrought,  and  beyond  which  it  did  not  extend.  For 
this  law  is  only  the  law  of  infinite  fitness,  which  is  received  from  itself. 

| Some  make  fj.oyL2.dXog  here  to  signify  mute,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  dldlovg  of 
ver.  37 ; and  they  refer  to  Isai.  xxxv.  6,  (LXX.,)  rpavrj  5b  bar  at  yltiaoa  /joytXaXav,  in 
proof;  as  also  to  Exod.  iv.  11,  where,  though  not  the  Septuagint,  yet  the  three  other 


THE  HEALING  OF  ONE  DEAF  AND  DUMB. 


281 


from  that  of  the  dumb  man  mentioned  Matt.  ix.  32;  for  while  that 
man’s  evil  is  traced  up  distinctly  and  directly  to  a spiritual  .source,  no- 
thing of  the  kind  is  intimated  here,  nor  are  we,  as  Theophylact  suggests, 
to  presume  such.  Him  his  friends  now  brought  to  the  great  Healer, 
“ and  they  beseech  him  to  put  his  hand  upon  him.”  It  is  not,  however, 
exactly  in  this  way  that  he  is  willing  to  heal  him. 

It  has  been  already  observed,  that  there  is  no  doubt  a deep  meaning 
in  all  the  variations  which  mark  the  different  healings  of  different  sick 
and  afflicted,  a wisdom  of  God  ordering  all  the  circumstances  of  each 
particular  cure.  Were  we  acquainted  as  accurately  as  he  who  knew 
what  was  in  man,  with  the  spiritual  condition  of  each  who  was  brought 
within  the  circle  of  his  grace,  we  should  then  perfectly  understand  why 
one  was  healed  in  the  crowd,  another  led  out  of  the  city  ere  the  work 
of  restoration  was  commenced ; why  for  one  a word  effected  a cure,  for 
another  a touch,  while  a third  was  sent  to  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam, 
ere  he  came  seeing ; why  for  these  the  process  of  restoration  was  instan- 
taneous, while  again  another  saw  at  first  “ men  as  trees  walking.”  At 
all  events  we  are  not  for  an  instant  to  suppose  in  these  gradually  accom- 
plished cures  any  restraint  on  the  power  of  the  Lord,  save  such  as  was 
willingly  imposed  by  himself — and  this,  doubtless,  in  each  case  having 
reference  to,  and  being  explicable  by,  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  of 
the  person  who  was  passing  under  his  hands ; though  our  ignorance  of 
this  prevents  us  from  at  once  seeing  the  manifold  wisdom  which  order- 
ed each  of  his  proceedings,  and  how  it  was  conducted  so  as  best  to  make 
the  bodily  healing  a passage  to  the  spiritual,  which  the  Lord  had  ever  in 
his  eye.* 

On  the  present  occasion  him  that  he  would  heal  he  first  “ took  aside 
from  the  multitude ,”  with  which  notice  wre  may  compare  Mark  viii.  23 : 
“ He  took  the  blind  man  by  the  hand  and  led  him  out  of  the  town.” 
But  for  what  reason  does  he  isolate  him  thus  ' The  Greek  Fathers  say 
generally,  for  the  avoiding  of  all  show  and  ostentation ; but  it  cannot  be 

Greek  translations  use  this  word  in  the  sense  of  dumb.  Yet  the  zkakzi  opOCiQ  of  ver. 
35  makes  it  to  me  far  more  probable  that  the  meaning  which  the  derivation  of  the 
word  more  naturally  suggests,  and  our  translation  has  given,  is  the  true.  He  was 
jSpadvykuaao^dyKvkoykuaaog, ba\bvitien9,thsLt  is,  he  could  make  no  intelligible  sounds; 
but  was  not  absolutely  dumb.  Cf.  Tsai,  xxxii.  4,  (LXX.)  ai  ykcoaaai  at  ^zkkL^ovaai. 

* Maldonatus : Yidetur  etiam  voluisse  Christus  non  semper  sequaliter  suam  di- 
vinitatem  potentiamque  declarare,  quod  non  semper,  etiamsi  nos  causa  lateat,  con- 
venire  judicaret.  Aliquando  solo  verbo  dsemones  ejicit,  mortuos  exsuscitat,  ostendens 
se  omnino  esse  Deum;  aliquando  tactu,  saliva,  luto,  sanat  segrotos,  accommodans 
quodammodo  potentiam  suam  ad  modum  agendi  causarum  naturalium,  et  ad  sensum 
et  consuetudinem  hominum. 


36 


282 


THE  HEALING-  OF  ONE  DEAF  AND  DUMB. 


for  this,  since  of  all  the  miracles  which  he  did  we  have  but  two  in 
which  any  such  withdrawal  is  recorded.  Shall  we  say  then  that  there 
was  show  and  ostentation  in  the  others  ? It  is  not  much  better  to  find, 
with  Calvin,  the  reason  in  this,  that  he  may  pray  with  greater  freedom.* 
He,  whose  whole  life  was  altogether  prayer,  needed  not  solitude  for 
this.  But  rather  his  purpose  in  this  was,  that  apart  from  the  din  and 
tumult  and  interruptions  of  the  crowd,  in  solitude  and  silence,  the  man 
might  be  more  recipient  of  deep  and  lasting  impressions ; even  as  the 
same  Lord  does  now  oftentimes  lead  a soul  apart  when  he  would  speak 
with  it,  or  heal  it ; sets  it  in  the  solitude  of  a sick  chamber,  or  in  lone- 
liness of  spirit,  or  takes  away  from  it  earthly  companions  and  friends. 
He  takes  it  aside,  as  this  deaf  and  dumb  out  of  the  multitude,  that  in  the 
hush  of  the  world’s  din  it  may  listen  to  him  ; a*s  on  a great  scale  he  took 
his  elect  people  aside  into  the  wilderness,  when  he  would  first  open  their 
spiritual  ear,  and  speak  unto  them  his  law. 

The  putting  his  finger  into  the  ears  of  the  man,  the  spitting  and 
touching  the  man’s  tongue  therewith,  are  easily  recognized  as  symbolic 
actions.  Nor  is  it  hard  to  perceive  why  he  should  specially  have  used 
these  in  the  case  of  one  afflicted  as  this  man  was ; — almost  all  other 
avenues  of  communication,  save  by  sight  and  feeling,  were  of  necessity 
precluded.  Christ  by  these  signs  would  awaken  his  faith,  and  stir  up 
in  him  the  lively  expectation  of  a blessing.  The  fingers  are  put  into 
the  ears  as  to  bore  them,  to  pierce  through  the  obstacles  which  hindered 
sounds  from  reaching  them.  This  was  the  fountain-evil ; he  did  not 
speak  plainly  because  he  did  not  hear ; t«his  defect,  therefore,  is  men- 
tioned as  being  first  removed,  f Then,  as  it  is  often  through  excessive 
drought  that  the  tongue  cleaves  to  the  roof  of  the  mouth,  so  the  Lord 
gives  here,  in  the  second  thing  which  he  does,  the  sign  , of  the  removal 
of  this  evil,  of  the  unloosing  of  the  tongue.  And,  at  the  same  time, 
all  the  healing  virtue  he  shows  to  reside  in  his  own  body;  he  looks 
not  for  it  from  any  other  quarter;  he  takes  nothing  from  any  one  else: 
but  with  the  moisture  of  his  own  mouth  upon  his  finger  touched  the 
tongue  which  he  would  set  free  from  the  bands  which  held  it  fast.  It 
is  not  for  its  medicinal  virtue  that  use  is  made  of  this,  but  as  the  suita- 
ble symbol  of  a power  residing  in  and  going  forth  from  his  body.J 

* Ut  precandi  ardorem  liber ius  effundat. 

f Grotius : Ssepe  Christus  externo  aliquo  signo  inadspectabilem  efficaciam  velut 
spectandam  exhibebat.  Ita  digitis  in  aures  immissis,  irrigataque  lingua  testatum 
fecit  se  eum  esse  cujus  vi  clausi  meatus  quasi  perterebrarentur,  et  lingua  palato 
adhaerescens  motum  recuperaret. 

X Grotius : Nec  alio  hoc  referendum  mihi  videtur  quam  quo  superiora,  ut  hoc 
quoque  indicio  ostenderetur  ab  ipso  Jesu  prodiisse  banc  salutiferam  virtutem,  cum 
nihil  admotum  esset  affecto  corpori,  prseter  ipsa  quse  ipsius  Jesu  erant  propria. 


THE  HEALING  OF  ONE  DEAF  AND  DUMB. 


283 


St.  Mark,  abounding  as  he  always  does  in  graphic  touches,  repro- 
ducing before  our  eyes  each  scene  which  he  describes,  tells  us  of  the 
Lord,  how  this  doing,  “ and  looking  up  to  heaven , he  sighed”  Nor  has 
he  failed  to  preserve  for  us  the  very  word  which  Christ  spake,  in  the 
very  language  in  which  he  uttered  it ; he  “ saith  unto  him , Ephphatha , 
that  is , Be  opened .”  The  looking  up  to  heaven  was  a claiming  of  the 
divine  help,  or  rather,  since  the  fulness  of  divine  power  abode  in  him 
permanently,  and  not  by  fitful  visitation  as  with  others,  this  was  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  his  oneness  with  the  Father,  and  that  he  did  no  other 
things  save  those  which  he  saw  the  Father  do.  (Cf.  Matt.  xiv.  19 ; 
John  xi.  41,  42.)  Some  explain  the  words  “ he  sighed ,”  or  “he 
groaned,”  which,  are  the  words  in  the  Khemish  version,  as  the  deep 
voice  of  prayer  in  which  he  was  at  the  moment  engaged;  but  it  is 
more  probable  to  suppose  that  this  poor  helpless  creature  now  brought 
before  him,  this  living  proof  of  the  wreck  which  sin  had  brought  about, 
of  the  malice  of  the  devil  in  deforming  the  fair  features  of  God’s  origi- 
nal creation,  then  wrung  that  groan  from  his  heart.  He  that  always 
felt,  was  yet  now  in  his  human  soul  touched  with  an  especially  lively 
sense  of  the  miseries  of  the  race  of  man.*  Compare  John  xi.  33,  “ He 
groaned  in  the  spirit  and  was  troubled,”  a trouble  which  had  in  like 
manner  its  source  in  the  thought  of  the  desolation  which  sin  and  death 
had  wrought.  As  there  the  mourning  hearts  which  were  before  him 
were  but  a specimen  of  the  mourners  of  all  times  and  all  places,  so 
was  this  poor  man  of  all  the  variously  afflicted  and  suffering  children  of 
Adam.f  In  the  preservation  of  the  actual  Aramaic  “ Ephphatha ,” 
which  Christ  spoke,  as  in  the  “Talitha  cumi”  of  Mark  v.  14, J we 
recognize  the  narrative  of  an  eye  and  ear  witness,  from  whom  the 

* Chrysostom  (in  Cramer’s  Catena ) : T r/v  rov  dvOpdrcov  <j>voiv  eXeuv,  ig  Trolav  ra- 
neivuoiv  f/yayev  ravTTjv  o te  fiiooKaloq  didfiolog,  ical  rj  ruv  TTpuroTrluanov  d-rcpocst-la. 

f In  the  exquisite  poem  in  The  Christian  Year  which  these  words  have  suggested, 
this  sigh  is  understood  rather  as  the  sigh  of  one  who  looked  onward  to  all  the  deeper 
spiritual  evils  of  humanity,  which  would  so  often  resist  even  his  power  of  healing : 

The  deaf  may  hear  the  Saviour’s  voice, 

The  fetter’d  tongue  its  chain  may  break ; 

But  the  deaf  heart,  the  dumb  by  choice, 

The  laggard  soul  that  will  not  wake, 

The  guilt  that  scorns  to  be  forgiven ; — 

These  baffle  even  the  spells  of  heaven; 

In  thought  of  these  his  brows  benign, 

Not  even  in  healing,  cloudless  shine. 

% It  is  quite  in  St.  Mark’s  manner  to  give  the  actual  Aramaic  words  which  Christ 
used,  adding,  however,  in  each  case  their  interpretation.  See  iii.  17  ; v.  41 ; vii.  11, 
xiv.  36  : xv.  34.  Compare  x.  46  ; xv.  22. 


284 


THE  HEALING  OE  ONE  DEAF  AND  DUMB. 


Evangelist  had  his  account,  and  in  whose  soul  the  words  of  power,  which 
were  followed  with  such  mighty  consequences,  which  opened  the  ears, 
and  loosed  the  tongue,  and  raised  the  dead,  had  indelibly  impressed 
themselves.* 

The  words  “ He  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  man”  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  friends  of  this  afflicted  man  had  perhaps  accom- 
panied Jesus  out  of  the  crowd,  and  having  been  witnesses  of  the  cure, 
were  now  included  with  him  in  the  same  prohibition  of  divulging  what 
had  been  done.  The  reasons  which  induced  the  Lord  so  often  to  give 
this  charge  of  silence  there  has  been  occasion  to  enter  on  elsewhere, 
and  to  say  something  on  the  amount  of  guilt  involved  in  the  disobedience 
to  this  injunction.  The  exclamation  in  which  the  surprise  and  admira- 
tion of  the  beholders  finds  utterance,  “ He  hath  done  all  things  well” 
reminds  us  of  the  words  of  the  first  creation,  (Gen.  i.  31, J)  upon  which 
we  are  thus  not  unsuitably  thrown  back,  for  Christ’s  work  is  in  the 
truest  sense  “ a new  creation.”  In  the  concluding  remark  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, “ They  glorified  the  God  of  Israel is  involved,  that  of  those  present 
a great  number  were  heathens,  which  we  might  easily  expect  in  this 
half-hellenized  region  of  Decapolis,  and  that  from  their  lips  was  brought 
the  confession,  that  the  God,  who  had  chosen  Israel,  was  indeed  above 
all  gods. 

* Grotius : Haec  autem  vox  Ephphatha  simul  cum  saliva  et  tactu  aurium  ac 
linguae  ex  hoc  Christi  facto  ad  Baptismi  ritus  postea  translata  sunt,  ut  significaretur 
non  minus  interna  mentis  impedimenta  tolli  per  Spiritum  Christi,  quam  in  isto  homine 
sablata  fuerant  sensuum  impedimenta.  Nam  et  cor  dicitur  diavotyeodcu,  Acts  xvi. 
14.  Imo  et  cordi  aures  tribuuntur.  The  rite  to  which  Grotius  alludes  is  one  that 
only  found  place  in  the  Latin  Church,  as  it  survives  in  that  of  Rome.  That  the 
practice  of  the  priest’s  touching  the  nostrils  and  ears  of  the  child  or  catechumen 
about  to  be  baptized,  with  moisture  from  his  mouth,  had  its  origin  here,  is  plainly 
indicated  by  the  word  Epheta,  which  he  used  at  the  same  time.  Ambrose,  addressing 
the  catechumens,  speaks  thus  ( Be  Init .,  c.  1):  Aperite  igitur  aures,  et  bonum  odorem 
vitae  aeternae  inlialatum  vobis  munere  Sacramentorum  carpite,  quod  vobis  significavi- 
mus,  cum  apertionis  celebrantes  mysterium  diceremus,  Epheta,  quod  est,  adaperire ; 
ut  venturus  unusquisque  ad  gratiam,quid  interrogaretur  cognosceret,  quid  responderet, 
meminisse  deberet.  Cf.  the  work  Be  Sacram.,  1.  1,  c.  1,  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose. 

f Here  naltic  navra  ttettoltjke.  There  navra  baa  ETroiijas,  tcald  Xiav. 


XXV. 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING  OF  FOUR  THOUSAND. 

Matt.  xv.  32 — 39  ; Mark  viii.  1 — 9. 

There  is  very  little  that  might  be  said  upon  this  miracle,  which  the 
preceding  one  of  the  same  nature  has  not  already  anticipated.  Whether 
this  was  wrought  nearly  in  the  same  locality,  namely,  in  the  desert 
country  belonging  to  Bethsaida,  and  not  rather  on  the  western,  as  the 
former  on  the  eastern,  side  of  the  lake,  has  been  sometimes  debated. 
Yet  it  seems  most  probable  that  it  was  wrought  nearly  on  the  same 
spot.  For  thither  the  narrative  of  St.  Mark  appears  to  have  brought  the 
Lord.  Leaving  the  coast  of  Tyre'  and  Sidon  after  the  healing  of  the 
daughter  of  the-Syrophenician  woman,  he  is  said  to  have  again  reached 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  this,  through  the  midst  , of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis. 
(vii.  31.)  But  all  the  cities  of  the  Decapolis  save  one  lay  beyond  Jor- 
dan, and  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake ; this  notice  therefore  places  him 
oh  the  same  side  also.  And,  again,  when  immediately  after  the  miracle 
he  took  ship  and  came  to  the  region  of  Magdala,  (Matt.  xv.  39,)  since 
Magdala  wap  certainly  on  the  western  side,  and  his  taking  ship  was 
most  probably  to  cross  the  lake,  and  not  to  coast  along  its  shores,  there 
is  here  a confirmation  of  the  same  view.?' 

* St.  Mark,  who  for  Magdala  substitutes  Dalmanutha,  does  not  help  us  here,  as 
there  are  no  further  traces  of  this  place  ; yet  that  it  was  on  the  western  side  of  the 
lake,  may  be  concluded  from  the  fact  that  Christ’s  leaving  it  and  crossing  the  lake,  is 
described  as  a departing  dc'ro  Trepav,  an  expression  in  the  New  Testament  applied 
almost  exclusively  to  the  country  east  of  the  lake  and  of  Jordan.  In  some  maps,  in 
that  for  instance  which  Lightfoot  gives,  Magdala  is  placed  at  the  S.  E.  of  the  lake; 
but  this  is  a mistake,  and  does  not  agree  with  passages  which  he  himself  quotes  from 
Jewish  writers,  ( Chorograph .,  c.  *76,)  which  all  go  to  show  that  it  was  close  to  Tibe- 
rias. It  is  most  probably  the  modern  El-Madschdel,  lying  on  the  S.  W.  of  the  lake, 
and  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city  just  named.  So  Mr.  Greswell,  Dissert,  v.  2,  p. 
324;  Winer,  Real  Worterbuch , s.  v.  Magdala;  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches,  v.  3 
p.  278. 


286 


THE  MIRACULOUS  FEEDING- 


With  all  the  points  of  similarity,  there  are  also  some  points  -differ 
encing  this  second  narrative  from  the  first.  Here  the  people  had  con- 
tinued with  the  Lord  three  days,  but  on  the  former  occasion  nothing  of 
the  kind  is  noted ; the  provision  too  is  somewhat  larger,  seven  loaves 
and  a few  fishes,  instead  of  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  ; as  the  number 
fed  is  somewhat  smaller,  four  thousand  now,  instead  of  five  thousand,  as 
it  was  then ; and  the  remaining  fragments  in  this  case  fill  but  seven  bas- 
kets,* while  in  the  former  they  had  filled  twelve.  Of  course  the  work, 
considered  as  a miraculous  putting  forth  of  the  power  of  the  Lord,  in 
each  case  remains  exactly  the  same. 

At  first  it  excites  some  surprise  that  the  apostles,  with  that  other 
miracle  fresh  in  their  memories,  should  now  have  been  equally  at  a loss 
how  the  multitude  should  be  fed  as  they  were  before.  Yet  this  surprise 
rises  out  of  our  ignorance  of  man’s  heart,  of  our  own  heart,  and  of 
the  deep  root  of  unbelief  which  is  there.  It  is  evermore  thus  in  times 
of  difficulty  and  distress.  All  former  deliverances  are  in  danger  of 
being  forgotten  ;f  the  mighty  interpositions  of  God’s  hand  in  former 
passages  of  men’s  lives  fall  out  of  their  memories.  Each  new  difficulty 
appears  insurmountable,  as  one  from  which  there  is  no  extrication ; at 
each  recurring  necessity  it  seems  as  though  the  wonders  of  God’s  grace 
are  exhausted  and  have  come  to  an  end.  God  may  have  divided  the 
Red  Sea  for  Israel,  yet  no  sooner  are  they  on  the  other  side,  than  be- 


* It  is  remarkable  that  all  four  Evangelists,  in  narrating  the  first  miracle,  agree 
in  using  the  term  Ko<j>ivovg  to  describe  the  baskets  which  were  filled  with  the  remain- 
ing fragments,  while  the  two  that  relate  the  second  equally  agree  there  in  using  the 
term  ai ruptSag.  And  that  this  variation  was  not  accidental,  but  that  there  was  some 
difference,  is  clear  from  our  Lord’s  after  words ; when  alluding  to  the  two  miracles, 
he  preserves  the  distinction,  asking  his  disciples  how  many  notyivovg  on  the  first  occa- 
sion they  gathered  up ; how  many  a-Kvp'idag  on  the  last.  (Matt.  xvi.  9, 10  ; Mark  viii. 
19,  20.)  What  the  distinction  was,  is  more  difficult  to  say.  The  derivation  of  the 
words,  Ko<j>Lvog  from  kotttg)  (=  dyyelov  ttIektov,  Suidas)  and  a'Kvpig  from  arretpa,  does 
not  help  us,  as  each  points  to  the  baskets  being  of  woven  work.  See,  however,  an- 
other derivation  of  cTzvpig  in  Mr.  Greswell’s  Dissert.,  v.  2,  p.  358,  and  the  distinction 
which  he  seeks  to  draw  from  it.  Why  the  people,  or  at  least  the  apostles  should  have 
been  provided  with  the  one  or  the  other  has  been  variously  accounted  for.  Some 
say,  to  carry  their  own  orovisions  with  them,  while  they  were  travelling  through  a 
polluted  land,  such  as  Samaria.  Mr.  Greswell  rather  supposes  that  they  might  sleep 
in  them,  so  long  as  they  were  compelled  to  lodge  sub  dio ; and  refers  in  confirmation, 
to  the  words  of  Juvenal  (3, 13):  Judaeis,  quorum  cophinus  fcenumque  supellex.  It 
appears  fiom  Acts  ix.  25,  that  the  CTtvpcg  might  be  of  size  sufficient  to  contain  a man. 

f Calvin : Quia  autem  similis  quotidie  nobis  obrepit  torpor,  eo  magis  cavendum 
est  ne  unquam  distrahantur  mentes  nostrae  a reputandis  Dei  beneficiis,  ut  praeteriti 
temporis  experientia  in  futurum  idem  nos  sperare  doceat,  quod  jam  semel  vel  saepius 
largitus  est  Deus. 


OF  FOUK  THOUSAND. 


287 


cause  there  are  no  waters  to  drink,  they  murmur  against  Moses,  and 
count  that  they  must  perish  for  thirst,  (Exod.  xvii.  1 — 7,)  crying,  “Is 
the  Lord  among  us  or  not  ?”  or,  to  adduce  a still  nearer  parallel,  once 
already  the  Lord  had  covered  the  camp  with  quails,  (Exod.  xvi.  13,)  yet 
for  all  this  even  Moses  himself  cannot  believe  that  he  will  provide  flesh 
for  all  that  multitude.  (Num.  xi.  21,  22.)  It  is  only  the  man  of  a full 
formed  faith,  a faith  such  as  apostles  themselves  at  this  time  had  not, 
who  argues  from  the  past  to  the  future,  and  truly  derives  confidence 
from  God’s  former  dealings  of  faithfulness  and  love.  (Cf.  1 Sam.  xvii. 
34—37;  2 Chron.  xvi.  7,  8.) 

And  were  it  not  so,  even  granting  that  they  did  remember  how  their 
Master  had  once  spread  a table  in  the  wilderness,  and  were  persuaded 
that  he  could  do  it  again,  yet  they  might  very  well  have  doubted 
whether  he  would  choose  a second  time  to  put  forth  his  creative  might ; 
— whether  there  was  in  these  present  multitudes  that  spiritual  hunger, 
which  was  worthy  of  being  met  and  rewarded  by  this  interposition  of 
divine  power ; whether  these  too  were  seeking  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  were  so  worthy  to  have  all  other  things,  those  also  which  pertain 
to  this  lower  life,  to  the  supply  of  their  present  needs,  added  unto 
them.* 

* It  is  at  least  an  ingenious  allegory  which  Augustine  starts,  that  these  two 
miracles  respectively  set  forth  Christ’s  communicating  of  himself  to  the  Jew  and  to 
the  Gentile ; that  as  the  first  is  a parable  of  the  Jewish  people  finding  in  him  the  sat- 
isfaction in  their  spiritual  need,  so  this  second,  in  which  the  people  came  from  far, 
even  from  the  far  country  of  idols,  is  a parable  of  the  Gentile  world.  The  details 
of  his  application  may  not  be  of  any  very  great  value ; but  the  perplexity  of  the 
apostles  here  concerning  the  supply  of  the  new  needs,  notwithstanding  all  that  they 
had  already  witnessed,  will  then  exactly  answer  to  the  slowness  with  which  they 
themselves,  as  the  ministers  of  the  new  Kingdom,  did  recognize  that  Christ  was  as 
freely  given  to,  and  was  as  truly  the  portion  of,  the  Gentile  as  the  Jew.  This  ser- 
mon the  Benedictine  Edd.  place  in  the  Appendix  ( Serm . 81),  but  the  passage  about 
Eutyches  might  easily  be,  indeed  bears  witness  of  being,  an  interpolation,  and  the 
rest  is  so  entirely  in  Augustine’s  manner,  that  I have  not  hesitated  to  quote  it  as 
his.  Hilary  had  before  him  suggested  the  same : Sicut  autem  ilia  turba  quam  pri  ns 
pavit,  Judaicse  credentium  convenit  turbee,  ita  hsec  populo  gentium  c'omparatur. 


XXVI. 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  ONE  BLIND  AT  BETHSAIDA. 

Mark  viii.  22 — 26. 


There  is  little  peculiar  in  this  miracle  which  has  not  been  treated  of 
elsewhere.  * For  Christ’s  leading  the  man  out  of  the  town,*  and  touch- 
ing his  eyes  as  he  did,  see  what  has  been  said  already  on  the  miracle 
last  treated  of  but  one.  The  Lord  links  on  his  power,  as  was  frequent 
with  him,  to  forms  in  use  among  men;  working  through  these  forms 
something  higher  than  they  could  have  produced,  and  clothing  the  su- 
pernatural in  the  forms  of  the  natural.  It  was  not  otherwise,  when  he 
bade  his  disciples  anoint  the  sick  with  oil, — one  of  the  most  esteemed 
helps  for  healing  in  the  East.  Not  the  oil,  but  his  Word  was  to  heal, 
yet  without  the  oil  the  disciples  might  have  found  it  too  hard  to  believe 
in  the  power  which  they  were  exerting, — those  who  through  their  faith 
were  to  be  healed,  in  the  power  which  should  heal  them.  (Mark  vi. 
13 ; Jam.  v.  14.)  So  the  figs  for  Hezekiah’s  boil  were  indeed  the  very 
remedy  which  a physician  with  only  natural  appliances  at  command 
would  have  used;  (Isai.  xxxviii.  22;.)  yet  now,  hiding  itself  behind  this 
nature,  clothing  itself  in  the  forms  of  this  nature,  did  an  effectual  work 
of  preternatural  healing  go  forward. 

The  only  circumstance  which  remains  distinctive  of  this  narration  is 
the  progressiveness  of  the  cure ; which  is  not  itself  without  analogies  in 
other  cures,  as  in  that  of  the  man  blind  from  his  birth,  who  only  after 
he  had  been  to  wash  in  Siloam,  “ came  seeing;”  (John  ix.  7;)  yet  the 
steps  of  the  progress  are  marked  more  plainly  here  than  in  any  other 

* Bengel  gives  this  as  the  reason  why  the  Lord  led  him  out  into  the  country : 
Cseco  visum  recuperanti  lsetior  erat  aspectus  cceli  et  operum  divinorum  in  naturd, 
quam  operum  humanorum  in  pago. 


OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  ONE  BLIND  AT  BETHS  AID  A.  289 

instance.  For  first  “ when  he  had  spit  on  his  eyes , and  put  his  hands 
upon  him , he  asked  him  if  he  saw  aught  And  he  looked  up  and  said \ I see 
men , as  trees , walking  certain  moving  forms  about  him,  but  without 
the  power  of  discerning  their  shape  or  magnitude, — trees  he  should  have 
accounted  them  from  their  height,  but  men  from  their  •motion.*  Then 
the  Lord  perfects  the  cure : “ He  put  his  hands  again  upon  his  eyes,\ 
and  made  him  look  up.  and  he  was  restored , and  saw  every  man  clearly .” 
Chrysostom  and  others  find  the  reasons  for  this  only  progressive 
cure,  in  the  imperfectness  of  this  blind  man’s  faith,  whereof  they  see  an 
evidence  in  this,  that  while  others  in  like  case  cried  with  their  own 
voices  to  Jesus  for  the  opening  of  their  eyes,  this  man  was  brought  to 
him  by  others,  himself  perhaps  scarcely  expecting  a benefit.  The  gra- 
cious Lord,  then,  who  would  not  reject  him,  but  who  could  as  little  cure 
him  so  long  as  there  was  on  his  part  this  desperation  of  healing,  gave  a 
glimpse  of  the  blessing,  that  he  might  kindle  in  him  a longing  for  the 
fulness  of  it,  that  he  might  show  him  how  he  was  indeed  an  opener  of 
the  blind  eyes.  Others  again  see  a testimony  here  of  the  freeness  of 
God’s  grace,  which  is  linked  to  no  single  way  of  manifestation,  but 
works  in  divers  manners,  sometimes  accomplishing  in  a moment  what 
at  other  times  it  brings  about  only  little  by  little.f 

There  has  oftentimes  been  traced  in  this  healing  an  apt  symbol  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  who  is  the  Light  of  the  world  makes  the  souls 
that  come  to  him  partakers  of  the  illumination  of  his  grace.  Not  all  at 
once  are  the  old  errors  and  the  old  confusions  put  to  flight ; not  all  at 
once  do  they  see  clearly : for  a while  there  are  many  remains  of  their 
old  blindness,  much  which  for  a season  still  hinders  their  vision  ; they 


* In  the  very  interesting  account  which  Cheselden  has  given  {Anatomy,  p.  301 
1768,  London)  of  the  feelings  of  a child,  who  having  been  blind  from  his  birth,  was 
enabled  to  see,  a curious  confirmation  of  the  truthfulness  of  this  narrative  occurs : 
" When  he  first  saw,  he  knew  not  the  shape  of  any  thing,  nor  any  one  thing  from 
another,  however  different  in  shape  or  magnitude,  but  being  told  what  things  were, 
whose  forms  he  before  knew  from  feeling,  he  would  carefully  observe  that  he  might 
know  them  again  ” 

f Chemnitz  {Harm.  JEJvang.,  c.  84):  Manus  imponit  ut  ostendat  carnem  suam 
esse  instrumentum  per  quod  et  cum  quo  ipse  6 A oyog  eeternus  omnia  opera  vivifica- 
tionis  perficiat. 

% Calvin  : Paulatim  caeco  visum  restituit : quod  ideo  factum  esse  probabile  est, 
ut  documentum  in  hoc  homine  statueret  liberae  suae  dispensationis,  nec  se  astrictum 
esse  ad  certam  normam,  quin  hoc  vel  illo  modo  virtutem  suam  proferret.  Oculos 
ergo  caeci  non  statim  ita  illuminat  ut  officio  suo  fungantur,  sed  obscurum  illis  con- 
fusumque  intuitum  instillat : deinde  altera  manuum  impositione  integram  aciem  illis 
reddit.  Ita  gratia  Christi,  quae  in  alios  repente  effusa  prius  erat,  quasi  guttatim 
defluxit  in  hunc  hominem. 


37 


290  OPENING  THE  EYES  OE  ONE  BLIND  AT  BETHS  AID  A. 


see  men  but  as  trees  walking.  Yet  in  good  time  Chrisi  finishes  the 
work  which  he  has  begun ; he  lays  his  hands  on  them  anew,  and  they, 
see  every  man  clearly.* 

* Bede : Quern  uno  verbo  totum  simul  curare  poterat,  paulatim  curat,  ut  mag- 
nitudinem  humanse  csecitatis  ostendat,  quse  vix  et  quasi  per  gradus  ad  lucem  redeat> 
et  gratiam  suam  nobis  indicet,  per  quam  singula  perfectionis  incrementa  adjuvat. 


/ 


XXVII. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD. 

Matt.  svii.  14 — 21 ; Mark  is.  14 — 29 ; Luke  ix.  37 — 42. 


The  old  adversaries  of  our  Lord,  the  Scribes,  had  taken  advantage  of  his 
absence  on  fhe  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  to  win  a temporary  triumph, 
or  at  least  something  like  one,  over  his  disciples,  who  were  themselves 
weakened  by  the  absence  of  their  Lord ; and  with  him  of  three,  the 
chiefest  among  themselves — those,  too,  in  whom,  as  habitually  the  near- 
est to  him,  we  may  suppose  his  power  most  mightily  to  have  resided. 
It  was  here  again,  as  it  was  once  before  during  the  absence  of  Moses  and 
his  servant  Joshua,  on  his  mount  of  a fainter  transfiguration.  Then,  too, 
in  like  manner,  the  enemy  had  found  his  advantage,  and  awhile  prevailed 
against  the  people.  (Exod.  xxxii.) 

It  would  seem  that  the  disciples  who  were  left  below  had  under- 
taken to  cast  out  an  evil  spirit  of  a peculiar  malignity,  and  had  proved 
unequal  to  the  task ; “ they  could  not .”  And  now  the  Scribes  were 
pressing  the  advantage  which  they  had  gained  by  this  miscarriage  of 
the  disciples  to  the  uttermost.  A great  multitude  too  were  gathered 
round,  spectators  of  the  defeat  of  the  servants  of  Christ;  and  the  strife 
was  at  the  highest, — the  Scribes,  no  doubt,  arguing  from  the  impotence 
of  the  servants  to  the  impotence  of  the  Master,*  and  they  denying  the 
conclusion;  when  suddenly  he  concerning  whom  the  strife  was,  ap- 
peared, returning  from  the  holy  mount,  his  face  and  person  yet  glisten- 
ing, as  there  is  reason  to  suppose,  with  reminiscences  and  traces  of  the 
glory  which  had  clothed  him  there,  reminiscences  and  traces  which  had 
not  yet  disappeared,  nor  faded  into  the  light  of  common  day, — so  that 
“ all  the  people , when  they  beheld  him , were  greatly  amazed .”  Yet  here 

* Calvin : Scnbse  victores  insultant,  nec  modo  subsannant  discipulos,  sed  proter- 
viunt  adversus  Christum,  quasi  in  illorum  persona  exinanita  esset  ejus  virtus. 


292 


THE  HEALIHGr  OF  THE  LUHATIC  CHILD. 


the  impression  which  that  glory  made  was  other  than  the  impression  of 
the  countenance  of  Moses.  When  the  multitude  saw  him  as  he  came 
down  from  his  mountain,  the  skin  of  his  face  shining,  “ they  were  afraid 
to  come  nigh  him,”  (Exod.  xxxiv.  30,)  for  that  glory  upon  his  face  was 
a threatening  glory,  the  awful  and  intolerable  brightness  of  the  Law. 
But  the  glory  of  God  shining  in  the  face  of  Christ  Jesus,  though  awful 
too,  was  also  an  attractive  glory,  full  of  grace  and  beauty,  drawing  men 
to  him,  not  driving  them  from  him : and  thus,  indeed,  “ all  the  people , 
when  they  beheld  him , were  greatly  amazed ,”  such  gleams  of  brightness 
played  around  him  still : yet  did  they  not  therefore  flee  from  him,  but 
rather,  as  taken  with  that  brightness,  they  “ running  to  him , saluted 
him.”*  (Compare  2 Cor.  iii.  18.) 

Yet  the  sight  and  sounds  which  greeted  ‘him  on  his  return  to  our 
sinful  world,  how  different  were  they  from  those  which  he  had  just  left 
upon  the  holy  mount ! There  the  highest  harmonies  of  heaven ; here 
some  of  the  wildest  and  harshest  discords  of  earth,  f There  he  had  been 
receiving  honor  and  glory  from  the  Father;  here  his  disciples,  those  to 
whom  his  work  had  been  intrusted  in  his  absence,  had  been  procuring 
for  him,  as  far  as  in  them,  lay,  shame  and  dishonor.  But  as  when  some 
great  captain  suddenly  arriving  upon  a field  of  battle,  where  his  subor- 
dinate lieutenants  have  well  nigh  lost  the  day,  and  brought  all  into  a 
hopeless  confusion,  with  his  eye  measures  at  once  the  necessities  of  the 
moment,  and  with  no  more  than  his  presence  causes  the  tide  of  victory 
to  turn,  and  every  thing  to  right  itself  again,  so  was  it  now.  The  Lord 
arrests  the  advancing  and  victorious  foe ; he  addresses  himself  to  the 
Scribes,  and  saying,  “ What  question  ye  with  them  ?”  takes  the  baffled 
and  hard  pressed  disciples  under  his  otfai  protection,  implying  by  his 
words,  “If  you  have  any  question,  henceforth  it  must  be  with  me.” 
But  they  to  whom  these  words  were  spoken  were  slow  to  accept  the 
challenge ; for  it  was  one  from  among  the  multitude,  the  father  of  the 
suffering  child,  which  was  his  only  one,  who  took  up  the  word,  and, 
kneeling  down  before  Jesus,  declared  all  his  own  misery  and  his  son’s. 

* This  is  more  likely  than  that  it  was  the  mere  salutation,  as  Theophylact  pro- 
poses, of  one  that  had  been  absent  for  awhile : though  he  too  was  not  unaware  of  the 
right  explanation : Tivbg  6b  <j>a<riv  on  rj  oiptg  avrov  upaioripa  yivoyEvr]  dird  rov  ^urbg 
t%  yETayoptyuGeug,  I^eiIketo  rove  oxhovg  irpog  to  dcizd^Ecdai.  Bengel  with  his  usual 
beauty : Tangebantur  a gloria,  etiamsi  nescirent  quid  in  monte  actum  esset.  Cf. 
Marc.  x.  32  ; Luc.  xix.  11,  nec  non  Ex.  iv.  14;  xxxiv.' 29.  Occultam  cum  Deo  con- 
versationem  facile  sentias  majorem  hominum  erga  te  proclivitatem  insequi. 

f These  mighty  and  wondrous  contrasts  have  not  escaped  the  Christian  artist. 
In  them  lies  the  idea  of  Raphael’s  great  picture  of  the  Transfiguration,  and  its  twe 
parts  which  so  mightily  sustain  one  another. 


THE  HEALING-  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD. 


293 


St.  Mark  paints  the  whole  scene  with  the  hand  of  a master,  and  his 
account  of  this  miracle,  compared  with  those  of  the  other  Evangelists, 
would  be  alone  sufficient  to  vindicate  for  him  an  original  character,  and 
to  refute  the  notion  of  some,  that  we  have  in  him  only  an  epitomizer, 
now  of  one,  and  now  of  the  other.*  All  the  symptoms,  as  put  into  the 
father’s  mouth,  or  described  by  the  sacred  historians,  exactly  agree  with 
those  of  epilepsy ; not  that  we  have  here  only  an  epileptic ; but  this 
was  the  ground  on  which  the  deeper  spiritual  evils  of  this  child  were 
superinduced.  The  fits  were  sudden  and  lasted  remarkably  long ; the 
evil  spirit  “ hardly  departeth  from  him;” — “ a dumb  spirit, ” St.  Mark 
calls  it,  a statement  which  does  not  contradict  that  of  St.  Luke,  “ he 
suddenly  crieth  out;”  this  dumbness  was  only  in  respect  of  articulate 
sounds;  he  could  give  no  utterance  to  these.  Nor  was  it  a natural  de- 
fect, as  where  the  string  of  the  tongue  has  remained  unloosed,  (Mark 
viih  32,)  or  the  needful  organs  for  speech  are  wanting,  not  a defect  un- 
der which  he  had  always  labored ; but  the  consequence  of  this  posses- 
sion. When  the  spirit  took  him  in  its  might,  then  in  these  paroxysms 
of  his  disorder  it  tare  him,  till  he  foamed \ and  gnashed  with  his  teeth: 
and  altogether  he  pined  away  like  one  the  very  springs  of  whose  life 
were  dried  up.j;  And  while  these  accesses  of  his  disorder  might  come 
upon  him  at  any  moment  and  in  any  place,  they  often  exposed  the  un- 
happy  sufferer  to  the  worst  accidents  : “ ofttimes  he  falleth  into  the  fire , 

* Even  Augustine  falls  in  with  this  view  (De  Cons.  Evany.,  1.  1,  c.  2) : Divus 
Marcus  eum  [Mattliaeum]  subsequutus  tanquam  pedissequus  et  breviator  ejus  videtur. 

f Compare  the  remarkable  account  in  Lucian’s  Philopseudes,  c.  16,  where  I can- 
not but  think  there  is  an  ironical  allusion  to  this  and  other  cures  of  demoniacs  by 
our  Lord  : Tldvreg  loaner  tov  'Lvpov  tov  Ik  ttjq  TlaTiatoTLvrjg,  tov  ettI  tovt'uv  oofyioTrjv, 
ooovg  Trapa7iaj3uv  KaTcriTCTOvrag  tt pog  rr/v  ueXijvrjv  Kal  tcj  oepdalyd  dcaorpedovrag  Kal 
d(j>pov  minrlaysvovg  to  oroya  oyog  dvcorrioc  Kal  dnoTVEfiTcei  dpriovg  ettl  y coded  yefdXep 
diraXldijag  tcjv  Seivuv.  There  is  much  beside  this  quoted  in  the  passage,  of  interest. 

£ S ripa'cverac . If  indeed  this  word  has  not  reference  to  the  stiffness  and  stark- 
ness, the  unnatural  rigescence  of  the  limbs  in  the  accesses  of  the  disorder.  Compare 
2 Kin.  xiii.  4,  LXX.  Such  would  not  indeed  be  the  first,  but  might  well  be  the  sec- 
ondary meaning  of  the  word,  since  that  which  is  dried  up  loses  its  pliability,  and  the 
place  which  the  word  occupies  makes  it  most  probable  that  the  father  is  describing 
not  the  general  pining  away  of  his  son,  but  his  symptoms  when  the  paroxysm  takes 
him.  The  ceXrjvLafryevoL,  (in  other  Greek  oeXijvtaKoi,  oefajvoffir/TOi,)  are  mentioned 
once  besides  in  the  New  Testament,  (Matt.  iv.  24,)  where  they  are  distinguished  from 
the  daiyovt^oyevoi.  The  distinction,  however,  whatever  it  was,  in  the  popular  lan- 
guage would  continually  disappear,  and  the  father  here  saying  of  his  son,  oeh rjviaCt  rai, 
does  but  express  the  fact,  or  rather  the  consequence,  of  his  possession.  Of  course 
the  word  originally,  like  yavea  (from  yrjvrf)  aud  lunaticus,  arose  from  the  wide-spread 
oelief  of  the  evil  influence  of  the  moon  (Ps.  exxi.  6)  on  the  human  frame.  (See 
Creuzer’s  Symbolik,  v.  2,  p.  51 1.) 


294 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD 


and  oft  into  the  water .”  In  St.  Mark  the  father  attributes  these  fits  tc 
the  direct  agency  of  the  evil  spirit:  “ofttimes  it  hath  cast  him  into  the 
fire , and  into  the  water s,  to  destroy  him yet  such  calamities  might 
equally  be  looked  at  as  the  natural  consequences  of  his  unhappy  condi- 
tion.* 

But  when  the  father  told  the  Lord  of  the  ineffectual  efforts  which 
the  disciples  had  made  for  his  relief,  “ I spake  to  thy  disciples  that  they 
should  cast  him  out,  and  they  could  not,”  he  with  a sorrowful  indignation 
exclaimed,  “ 0 faithless  generation,  how  long  shall  1 be  with  you  ? how 
long  shall  I suffer  you  ?”  And  here  we  have  two  different  applications 
of  these  words.  Some,  as  for  instance  Origen,  apply  them  to  the  disci- 
ples, and  them  alone;  they  suppose  that  our  Lord  speaks  thus,  grieved 
and  indignant  at  the  weakness  of  their  faith,  and  that  even  so  brief  a 
separation  from  him  had  shorn  them  of  their  strength,  and  left  them 
powerless  against  the  kingdom  of  darkness;  and  the  after  discourse 
(Matt.  xvii.  20)  seems  to  make  for  such  an  application.  Others,  as 
Chrysostom,  and  generally  the  early  interpreters,  would  pointedly  ex- 
clude the  disciples  from  the  rebuke;  and  they  give  it  all  to  the  sur- 
rounding multitude,  and  certainly  the  term  “ generation ” seems  to  point 
to  them,  though  less  personally,  than  as  being  specimens  and  represen- 
tatives of  the  whole  Jewish  people,  the  father  himself  coming  singularly 
forward  as  an  example  of  the  unbelieving  temper  of  the  whole  genera- 
tion to  which  he  pertained,  (Mark  ix.  22,)  and  therefore  being  an  especial 
sharer  in  the  condemnation.  In  St.  Mark  indeed  it  is  primarily  addressed 
to  him  : “ He  answereth  him , and  saith,  0 faithless  generation  yet  the 
language  shows  that  the  rebuke  is  intended  to  pass  on  to  many  more. 
And  indeed  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  is  that  which  reconciles 
both  these  views ; the  disciples  are  not  exclusively  aimed  at,  nor  chiefly, 
but  rather  the  multitude  and  the  father : they,  however,  are  included  in 
the  rebuke ; their  unfaithfulness  and  unbelief  had  brought  them,  for  the 


* These  extracts  will  abundantly  justify  what  was  said  above  of  the  symptoms 
of  this  child’s  case  being  those  of  one  taken  with  epilepsy.  Cselius  Aurelianus  {Morb. 
Ghron.,  1.  1,  c.  4) : Alii  [epileptici]  publicis  in  locis  cadendo  foedantur,  adjunctis  etiam 
externis  periculis,  loci  causa  prsecipites  dati,  aut  in  flumina  vel  mare  cadentes.  And 
Paulus  iEgineta,  the  last  of  the  great  physicians  of  the  old  world,  describing  epilepsy, 
(1.  3,  c.  13,)  might  almost  seem  to  have  borrowed  his  account  from  this  history:  Mor- 
bus comitialis  est  convulsio  totius  corporis  cum  principalium  actionum  lsesione, .... 
fit  hsec  affectio  maxime  pueris,  postea  vero  etiam  in  adolescentibus  et  in  vigore  con- 
sistentibus.  Instante  verb  jam  symptomate  collaptio  ipsis  derepente  contigit  et  con- 
vulsio,  et  quandoque  nihil  significans  exclamatio  tcpafri,  Luke  ix.  39).  Prae- 

cipuum  vero  ipsorum  signum  est  oris  spuma  (peril  d<j>pov,  Luke  ix.  39 ; cf.  Lucian’s 
Philopseudes,  c.  16.) 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD. 


295 


time,  back  to  the  level  with  their  nation,  and  they  must  share  with  them 
in  a common  reproach.  “ How  long  shall  I be  with  you?”  are  words 
not  so  much  of  one  longing  to  put  off  the  coil  of  flesh,*  as  rather  of 
a master,  complaining  of  the  slowness  and  dulness  of  his  scholars. 
“ Have  I abode  with  you  all  this  time,  and  have  you  profited  so  little  by 
my  teaching  1”  feeling,  it  may  be,  at  the  same  time,  that  till  their  task 
was  learned,  he  could  not  leave  them,  he  must  abide  with  them  still. f 
We  may  compare  his  words  to  Philip,  “ Have  I been  so  long  time  with 
you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip1?”  (John  xiv.  9.) 

And  now  he  says,  “ Bring  him  unto  me”  As  the  staff  in  Gehazi’s 
hand  could  not  arouse  the  dead  child,  but  the  prophet  himself  must 
come  and  take  the  work  in  hand,  before  ever  a cure  can  be  wrought,  so 
must  it  be  how.  Yet  the  first  bringing  of  the  child  to  Jesus  causes 
another  of  the  fearful  paroxysms  of  his  disorder,  so  that  “ he  fell  on  the 
ground  and  wallowed , foaming ” The  kingdom  of  Satan  in  small  and 
in  great  is  ever  stirred  into  a fiercer  activity  by  the  coming  near  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  Satan  has  great  *wrath,  when  his  time  is  short. J 
But  as  the  Lord  on  occasion  of  another  difficult  cure  (Mark  v.  9)  began 
a conversation  with  the  sufferer  himself,  seeking  thus  to  inspire  him 
with  confidence,  to  bring  back  something  of  calmness  to  his  soul,  so 
does  he  now  with  the  representative  of  the  sufferer,  the  father,  it  being 
impossible,  from  his  actual  condition,  to  do  it  with  himself : “ How  long 
is  it  ago  since  this  came  unto  him?”  But  the  father,  answering  indeed 
the  question,  that  it  was  “ of  a child f and  for  the  stirring  of  more  pity, 
describing  again  the  miserable  perils  in  which  these  fits  involved  his 
child,  yet  ill  content  that  any  thing  should  come  before  the  healing,  if  a 
healing  were  possible,  having,  too,  present  before  his  mind  the  recent 
failure  which  the  disciples  had  made,  added,  “ If  thou , if  thou  more  than 
these,  canst  do  my  thing , have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us.”  He  says 
“ us,”  so  entirely  is  his  own  life  knit  up  with  his  child’s  life : as  the 
Canaanitish  woman,  pleading  for  her  daughter,  had  cried,  “ Have  mercy 
on  me.”  (Matt.  xv.  22.)  Yet  at  the  same  time  he  reveals  by  that  “ if” 
how  he  had  come  with  no  unquestioning  faith  in  the  power  of  the  Lord 
to  aid,  but  was  rendering  the  difficult  cure  more  difficult  still  by  his  own 
doubting  and  unbelief. 

* Jerome  {Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc) : Non  quod  tsedio  superatus  sit,  et  mansuetus 
ac  mitis ; . . sed  quod  in  similitudinem  medici  si  segrotum  videat  contra  sua  praecepta 
se  gerere  dicat : Usquequo  accedam  ad  domum  tuam,  quousque  artis  perdam  inju- 
riam ; me  aliud  jubente  et  te  aliud  perpetrante  ? 

f Bengel : Festinabat  ad  Patrem:  nec  tamen  abitum  se  facere  posse  sciebat, 
priusquam  discipulos  ad  fidem  perduxisset.  Molesta  erat  tarditas  eorum. 

$ Calvin : Quo  propior  affulget  Christi  gratia,  et  efficacius  agit,  eo  impotentius 
furit  Satan. 


296 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD, 


Our  Lord’s  answer  is  not  without  its  difficulty,  especially  as  it  ap- 
pears  in  the  original,  hut  the  sense  of  it  is  plainly  the  following ; “ That 
k if  of  thine,  that  uncertainty  whether  this  can  be  done  or  not,  is  to  be 
resolved  by  thee  and  not  by  me.  There  is  a condition  without  which 
this  thy  child  cannot  be  healed ; but  the  fulfilling  of  the  condition  lies 
with  no  other  than  thyself.  The  absence  of  faith  on  thy  part,  and  not 
any  overmastering  power  in  this  malignant  spirit,  is  that  which  straitens 
me ; if  this  cure  is  hard,  it  is  thou  that  renderest  it  so.  Thou  hast 
said,  If  / can  do  any  thing ; but  the  question  is,  ‘ If  ih  m canst  believe  ;’ 
this  is  the  hinge  upon  which  all  must  turn” — and  then  with  a pause, 
and  no  merely  suspended  sense  as  in  our  translation,*  follow  those  fur- 
ther words,  “ All  things  are  possible  to  him,  that  believeth .”  So  that  faith 
is  here,  as  in  all  other  cases,  set  as  the  condition  of  healing ; on  other 
occasions  it  is  the  faith  of  the  person ; but  here,  that  being  impossible, 
the  father’s  is  accepted  instead ; even  as  the  Syrophenician  mother’s  in 
the  room  of  her  daughter’s.  (Matt.  xv.  22.)  Thus  the  Lord  appears, 
in  Olshausen’s  words,  in  some  sort  a gcasvrrjg  rflrfrsug,  helping  the  birth 
of  faith  in  that  empty  soul.  And  now,  though  with  pain  and  with  sore 
travail,  it  has  come  to  the  birth,  so  that  the  father  exclaims,  “ Lord , 1 
believe and  then  the  little  spark  of  faith  which  is  enkindled  in  his 
soul  revealing  to  him  the  abysmal  deeps  of  unbelief  which  are  there, 
he  adds  this  further,  “ Help  thou  mine  unbelief.” f For  thus  it  is  ever: 
only  in  the  light  of  the  actual  presence  of  grace  in  the  soul  does  any 
man  perceive  the  strength  and  prevalence  of  the  opposing  corruption. 
Before  he  had  no  measure  by  which  to  measure  his  deficiency.  Only 
he  who  believes,  guesses  aught  of  the  unbelief  of  his  heart. 

But  now,  when  this  condition  of  healing  is  no  longer  wanting  on  his 
part,  the  .Lord,  meeting  and  rewarding  even  the  weak  beginnings  of  his 
faith,  accomplishes  the  cure.  We  may  observe,  in  Christ’s  address  to 
the  foul  spirit,  the  majestic  “/ charge  thee  no  longer  one  whom  thou 
mayest  dare  to  disobey,  against  whom  thou  mayest  venture  to  struggle, 
but  I,  the  Prince  of  the  kingdom  of  light,  “ charge  thee , come  out  of  him.” 
Nor  is  this  all:  he  shall  “ enter  no  more  into  him.”  Christ  bars  his  re- 
turn ; he  shall  not  take  advantage  of  his  long  possession,  presently  to  come 
back  (Matt.  xii.  45)  and  re-assert  his  dominion ; the  cure  shall  be  per- 
fect and  lasting.  Most  unwillingly  the  evil  spirit  departs,  seeking  to 

* The  words,  I imagine,  should  be  pointed  thus : rd,  el  dvvaccu  Tuarevc-ai'  tt dvr  a 
dwarcl  rti  mcrevovTi,  and  Bengel  enters  rightly  into  the  construction  of  the  first 
clause,  explaining  it  thus:  Hoc,  si  potes  credere,  res  est : hoc  agitur.  Calvin:  Tu 
me  rogas  ut  subveniam  quoad  potero;  atqui  inexhaustum  virtutis  fontem  in  me 
reperies,  si  modo  afferas  satis  amplam  fidei  mensuram. 

1 Augustine,  Serin.  43,  c.  8,  7. 


THE  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD. 


297 


destroy  that  which  he  can  no  longer  retain ; as  Fuller,  with  wit  which 
is  in  season  and  out  of  season,  expresses  it,  “ like  an  outgoing  tenant 
that  cares  not  what  mischief  he  does.”*  So  fearful  wTas  this  last  parox- 
ysm, so  entirely  had  it  exhausted  all  the  powers  of  the  child,  “ that  he 
was  as  one  dead ; and  many  said , He  is  dead ; hut  Jesus  took  him  by  the 
hand”  and  from  that  touch  o& the  Lord  of  life  there  came  into  him 
life  anew : even  as  we  often  elsewhere  find  a reviving  power  to  he 
by  the  same  channel  conveyed.  (Dan.  x.  8,  9;  Rev.  i.  17  ; Matt.  xvii. 
6—8.) 

Afterwards  the  disciples  asked  privately  how  it  came  to  pass  that 
they  were  baffled  in  the  attempts  which  they  had  made  to  accomplish 
the  cure,  since  they  were  not  exceeding  their  commission,  (Matt.  x.  8,) 
and  had  on  former  occasions  found  the  devils  subject  to  them ; and  the 
Lord  tells  them,  because  of  their  unbelief,  because  of  their  lack  of  that 
to  which,  and  to  which  only,  all  things  are  possible.  They  had  made 
but  a languid  use  of  the  means  for  stirring  up  and  strengthening  faith ; 
while  yet,  though  their  locks  were  shorn,  they  would  go  forth,  as  before 
against  their  enemies,  being  certain  to  be  foiled  whensoever  they  en- 
countered, as  they  did  here,  an  enemy  of  peculiar  malignity ; for  the 
phrase  “ this  kind ” marks  that  there  are  orders  of  evil  spirits,  that  as 
there  is  a hierarchy  of  heaven,  so  is  there  an  inverted  hierarchy  of  hell. 
The  same  is  intimated  in  the  mention  of  the  unclean  spirit  going  and 
taking  : seven  other  spirits,  more  wicked  than  himself”  (Matt.  xii.  45 ;) 
and  at  Ephes.  vi.  12,  there  is  probably  a climax,  St.  Paul  mounting 
up  from  one  degree  of  spiritual  power  and  malignity  to  another.  “ This 
kind,”  he  says,  “ goeth  not  out  but  by  'prayer  and  fasting.”  The  faith 
which  shall  be  effectual  against  this  must  be  a faith  exercised  in  prayer, 
that  has  not  relaxed  itself  by  an  habitual  compliance  with  the  demands 
of  the  lower  nature,  but  often  girt  itself  up  to  an  austerer  rule,  to  rigor 
and  self-denial. 

But  as  the  secret  of  all  weakness  is  in  unbelief,  so  of  all  strength  is 
faith ; and  this  our  Lord  teaches  them  when  he  adds,  “ For  verily  I say 
unto  you , If  ye  have  faith  as  a grain  of  mustard  seed , ye  shall  say  unto 
this  mountain , Remove  hence  to  yonder  place , and  it  shall  remove;  and 

* Gregory  the  Great  ( Moral 1.  32,  c.  19):  Ecce  eum  non  discerpserat  cum 
tenebat,  exiens  discerpsit : quia  nimirum  tunc  pejus  cogitationes  mentis  dilaniat,  cum 
jam  egressui  divina  virtute  compulsus  appropinquat.  Et  quern  mutus  possederat, 
cum  clamoribus  deserebat : quia  plerumque  cum  possidet,  minora  tentamenta  irrogat : 
cum  vero  de  covde  pellitur,  acriori  infestatione  perturbat.  Cf.  Horn.  12  in  Ezelc.,  and 
H.  de  Sto.  Victore ; Dum  puer  ad  Dominum  accedit,  eliditur  : quia  conversi  ad  Do- 
minum  plerumque  a dsemonio  gravius  pulsantur,  ut  vel  ad  vitia  reducantur,  vel  de 
aua  expulsione  se  t indice t Diabolus. 


298 


THE  HEALING-  OE  THE  LUNATIC  CHILD. 


nothing  shall  be  impossible  unto  you .”  The  image  re-appears  with 
some  modifications,  Luke  xvii.  6;  and  St.  ‘Paul  probably  alludes  to 
these  words  of  his  Lord,  1 Cor.  xiii.  2.  Many  explain  “ faith  as  a 
grain  of  mustard  seed  ” to  mean  lively  faith,  with  allusion  to  the  keen 
and  biting  powers  of  that  grain.*  But  it  certainly  is  not  upon  this 
side  that  the  comparison  is  to  be  brought  out ; rather,  as  Maldonatus 
rightly  remarks,  it  is  the  smallest  faith,  with  a tacit  contrast  between  a 
grain  of  mustard  seed,  a very  small  thing,  and  a mountain,  a very  great. 
That  smallest  shall  be  effectual  to  work  on  this  largest.  The  least  spir- 
itual power  shall  be  potent  for  the  overthrow  of  the  mightiest  powers 
which  are  merely  of  this  world. 

* Augustine  ( Serrn . 246) : Modicum  videtur  granum  sinapis ; nihil  contemtibilius 
adspectu,  nihil  fortius  gusto.  Quod  quid  est  aliud,  nisi  maximus  ardor  et  intima  vis 
fidei  in  ecclesia  ? 


XXYIII. 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 

Matt.  xvii.  24 — 27. 

This  miracle  finds  a place  only  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  ar*d  a 
nearer  contemplation  of  its  features  will  show  why  we  might  even  be- 
forehand have  expected  to  meet  it,  if  in  one  only,  then  in  that  which  is 
eminently  the  theocratic  Gospel.  But  its  significance  has  oftentimes 
been  wholly  missed,  and  the  entire  transaction  emptied  of  its  higher 
meaning,  robbed  too  of  all  its  deeper  lessons,  by  the  assumption  that 
this  money  which  was  demanded  of  Peter  was  a civil  impost,  a tribute 
owing,  like  the  penny  of  a later  occasion,  (Matt.  xxii.  19,)  to  the  Roman 
emperor ; and  the  word  “ tribute ”*  used  in  our  translation,  rather  up- 
holds this  error,  and  leads  men’s  thoughts  in  the  wrong  direction, — and 
to  consider  it  this  civil  impost,  instead  of  what  it  truly  was,  a theocratic 
payment,  due  to  the  temple  and  the  temple’s  God.  And  this  error  has 
brought  in  with  it  and  necessitated  another : for,'  as  the  only  means  of 
maintaining  any  appearance  of  an  argument  in  our  Lord’s  words,  it  has 
been  needful  to  understand  the  kingly  dignity,  the  royal  birth,  on  the 
ground  of  which  Christ  here  exempts  himself  from  the  payment,  to  be 
his  Davidical  descent,  and  not,  as  it  is  indeed,  his  divine. 

It  is  true  that  this  erroneous  interpretation  has  been  maintained  by 
some,  I may  say  by  many  expositors,  ancient  and  modern,  of  high  au- 
thority ; yet  rather,  it  would  seem,  in  most  cases,  from  nof  having  the 
true  interpretation,  which  carries  conviction  with  it,  before  them,  than 
from  deliberately  preferring  the  other.  Thus  Augustine  adduces  this 
passage  in  connection  with  Rom.  xiii.  1 — 7,  “ Let  every  soul  be  subject 
to  the  higher  powers  ....  Render,  therefore,  to  all  their  dues,  tribute 
to  whom  tribute  is  due,” — and  finds  in  it  a motive  for  a willing  obedi- 


In  the  original,  rd  didpaxpa. 


300 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  EISH’s  MOUTH. 


ence  on  the  part  of  the  faithful  to  the  civil  power  ;* * * §  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria  draws  from  it  the  same  lesson.  Origen,  too,  supposes  it  a 
civil  payment ; and  Jerome,  also,  throughout  takes  this  wrong  standing 
point  from  which  to  explain  this  miracle  ; so  too,  in  modern  times,  Mal- 
donatus,  who  is  aware  of,  but  distinctly  rejects,  the  correcter  interpretation, 
— being  here,  for  once,  at  one  with  Calvin,  the  great  object  of  his  polem- 
ical hatred.  The  last,  however,  upholds  this  view  in  a modified  form, 
— he  supposes  that  the  money  claimed  was  indeed  the  temple  dues,  but 
yet  which  now  had  been  by  the  Romans  alienated  from  its  original  des- 
tination, they  compelling  the  Jews  to  pay  it  into  the  Roman  treasury,  f 
This,  however,  as  will  be  seen,  is  historically  incorrect,  that  alienation 
not  having  taken  place  till  a later  time.J 

The  arguments  for  the  other  interpretation,  both  external  and  inter- 
nal, are  so  prevailing,  as  hardly  to  leave  a residue  of  doubt  upon  any 
mind  before  which  they  are  fairly  brought.  For,  in  the  first  place,  this 
didrachm  was  exactly  the  sum§  which  we  find  mentioned  Exod.  xxx. 
11 — 16,  as  the  ransom  of  the  soul,  to  be  paid  by  every  Israelite  above 
twenty  years  old,  to  the  service  and  current  expenses  of  the  tabernacle, 
or,  as  it  afterwards  would  be,  of  the  temple.  ||  It  is  true  that  there  it 

* De  Catechiz.  Rud.,  c.  21 : Ipse  Dominus  ut  nobis  hujus  sanse  doctrinae  prgeberet 
cxemplum,  pro  capite  hominis,  quo  erat  indutus,  tributum  solvere  non  dedignatus  est. 
Clemens  of  Alex.  ( Pcedag . 1.  2,  Potter’s  Ed.,  v.  1,  p.  172) : Tov  ararripa  rolg  rehuvcut; 
<5ovg,  ra  K ataapog  dnoSovg  r<3  Kaiaapi. 

f Ita  quasi  alienati  essent  Judge i a Dei  imperio,  profanis  tyrannis  solvebant  sacrum 
censum  in  Lege  indictum. 

\ Add  to  these  W olf  ( Curce,  in  loc.),  who  has  the  wrong  interpretation  ; and  Pe- 
titus  ( Crit . Sac.,  9,  2566) : Corn,  a Lapide ; and  only  the  other  day,  and  after  any 
further  mistake  seemed  impossible,  Wieseler  ( Chronol . Synopse,  p.  265,  sqq.)  has  re- 
turned to  the  old  error.  The  true  meaning  has  been  perfectly  seized  by  Hilary 
{Comm,  in  Mattli.,  in  loc.)  by  Ambrose  {Ep.  7,  ad  Justum,  c.  12),  and  in  the  main  by 
Chrysostom  {In  Matth.,  Horn.  54,)  and  Theopliylact,  who  yet  have  gone  astray  upon 
Rum.  iii.  40 — 51 ; and  in  later  times  by  Cameron  ( Crit.  Sac.,  in  loc.),  by  Freher  {Crit. 
Sac.,  v.  9,  p.  3633),  by  Hammond,  who  has  altogether  a true  insight  into  the  matter, 
Grotius,  Lightfoot,  Bengel,  Michaelis,  and  last  of  all  by  Olshausen,  and  Mr.  Greswell 
{Dissert.,  v.  2,  p.  376). 

§ It  is  true*  that  in  the  Septuagint  (Exod.  xxx.  13)  it  is  fyuov  tov  dtdpdxyov.  But 
this  arises  from  their  expressing  themselves,  as  naturally  they  would,  according  to  the 
Alexandrian  drachm,  which  was  twice  the  value  of  the  Attic.  (See  Hammond,  in  loc.) 

||  The  sum  there  named  is  a half  shekel.  Before  the  Babylonian  exile,  the  shekel 
was  only  a certain  weight  of  silver,  not  a coined  money : in  the  time,  however,  of  the 
Maccabees,  (1  Macc.  xv.  6,)  the  Jews  received  the  privilege,  or  won  the  right,  from 
the  kings  of  Syria  of  coining  their  own  money,  and  the  shekels,  half  shekels,  and 
quarter  shekels  now  found  in  the  cabinets  of  collectors  are  to  be  referred  to  this  period. 
These  growing  scarce,  and  not  being  coined  any  more,  it  became  the  custom  to  esti- 
mate the  temple  dues  as  two  drachms,  (the  dtdpaxyov  here  required,)  a sum  actually 


THE  STATEE  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 


301 


seems  only  to  have  been  ordered  to  be  paid  on  the  occasions,  which 
most  probably  were  rare,  of  the  numbering  of  the  people.  But  whether 
from  such  having  been  the  real  intention  of  the  divine  Legislator,  or 
from  a later  custom  which  arose  only  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  it 
had  grown  into  an  annual  payment.  Some  have  thought  they  found 
traces  of  it  earlier, — and,  indeed,  there  seem  distinct  notices  of  it,  2 
Kin.  xii.  4 ; 2 Chron.  xxiv.  5,  6,  9 ; and  all  the  circumstances  of  what  is 
there  described  as  the  collection  which  “ Moses  the  servant  of  God  laid 
upon  Israel  in  the  wilderness,”  seem  to  make  for  the  supposition.*  At 
Nehemiah  x.  32,  the  circumstance  that  it  is  a third  part  of  a shekel,  and 
not  a half,  which  they  agree  to  pay,  makes  it  more  questionable,  as  they 
would  scarcely  have  ventured  to  alter  the  amount  of  a divinely  institu- 
ted payment ; yet  the  fact  that  it  was  yearly,  and  that  it  was  expressly 
for  the  service  of  the  house  of  God,  would  lead  us  to  think  that  it  can 
be  no  other  payment  which  is  meant : and  they  may  have  found  an  ex- 
cuse for  the  alteration  in  their  present  distress.  Josephusf  mentions 
that  it  was  an  annual  payment  in  his  time ; and  Philo,  who  tells  us  how 
conscientiously  and  ungrudgingly  it  was  paid  by  the  Jews  of  the  Dis- 
persion, as  well  as  by  the  J ews  of  Palestine,  so  that  in  almost  every  city 
there  was  a sacred  treasury  for  the  collection  of  these  dues,  some  of 
which  came  from  cities  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Roman  empire ; and 
then  at  certain  times  there  were  sacred  messengers  selected  from  among 

somewhat  larger  than  the  half  shekel,  as  those  that  have  compared  together  the 
weights  of  the  existing  specimens  of  each  have  found;  thus  Josephus  {Antt.,  L 3,  c.  8, 
§ 2) : 'O  Se  c'ui7iog>  vopiapa  'E fipatuv  uv,  ’A rructig  de^erat  dpax/uug  reacapag.  As  the 
produce  of  the  miracle  was  to  pay  for  two  persons,  the  sum  required  was  four  drachms, 
or  a whole  shekel,  and  the  crarriQ  found  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish  is  just  that  sum.  It 
indeed  often  bore  the  name  of  rerpddpaxpog.  Jerome : Siclus  autem,  id  est  stater, 
habet  drachmas  quatuor.  It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  this  stater  is  not  the  gold 
coin  that  more  accurately  bears  that  name,  which  would  have  been  equal  not  to  four, 
but  to  twenty,  drachms ; but  rather,  as  is  said  above,  the  silver,  tetradrachm,  which 
in  later  times  of  Greece,  came  to  be  called  a stater.  That  other  stater,  equal  to  the 
Persian  daric,  would  have  been  worth  something  more  than  sixteen  shillings  of  our 
money,  this  three  shillings  and  threepence.  (See  the  Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Antt. 
s.  vv.  Drachma  and  Stater,  and  Winer’s  Real  Worterbuch,  s.  v.  Sekel.)  It  is  curi- 
ous that  Theophylact  should  seem,  ignorant  of  what  this  stater  is.  Some  think  it,  he 
says,  a precious  stone  which  is  found  in  Syria. 

* So  Dathe ; Michaelis  (J fos.  Recht,  v.  3,  p.  202)  questions  or  denies  it. 

f Antt.,  1.  18,  c.  9,  § 1.  The  time  appointed  for  the  payment  was  between  the 
15th  and  25th  of  the  month  Adar  (March),  that  is,  about  the  feast  of  the  Passover. 
Yet  no  secure  chronological  conclusions  in  regard  to  our  Lord’s  ministry  can  be  won 
from  this ; as,  through  his  absence  from  Capernaum,  the  money  might  have  been  for 
some  time  due.  Indeed,  in  all  probability,  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  was  now  at 
hand. 


302 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  FISH?S  MOUTH. 

the  worthiest  to  bear  the  collected  money  to  Jerusalem.* * * §  It  was  only 
after  the  destruction  of  that  city,  that  Vespasian  caused  this  capitation 
tax  to  be  henceforward  paid  into  the  imperial  treasury,  instead  of  the 
treasury  of  the  temple,  which  now  no  longer  existed. 

The  words  of  Josephus  on  this  matter  are  as  explicit  as  can  be ; 
these  words  I will  quote,  as  the  only  argument  produced  against  this 
scheme  is,  that  it  was  before  the  present  time,  and  as  early  as  Pompey, 
that  these  moneys  were  diverted  from  their  original  destination,  and 
made  payable  to  the  Roman  treasury.  Of  Vespasian  he  says,f  “He 
imposed  a tribute  on  the  Jews  wheresoever  they  lived,  requiring  each 
to  pay  yearly  two  drachms  to  the  capitol,  as  before  they  were  wont  to 
pay  them  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.”  But  of  Pompey  he  merely 
says,  that  “he  made  Jerusalem  tributary  to  the  Romans,” J without  any 
mention  whatever  of  his  laying  hands  on  this  tax,  of  which  we  have  al- 
ready seen  that  abundant  evidence  exists  that  it  continued  long  after  his 
time  to  be  rendered  to  the  temple.  Not  otherwise  indeed  could  Titus, 
when  he  was  reproaching  the  Jews  with  the  little  provocation  which  they 
had  for  their  revolt,  have  reminded  the  revolters  how  the  Romans  had 
permitted  them  to  collect  their  own  sacred  imposts.§ 

We  may  observe  again  that  it  is  not  the  publicans  that  are  said  to 
come  demanding  this  tribute,  which  would  have  been  the  natural  appel- 
lation of  the  collectors,  had  they  been  the  ordinary  tax-gatherers,  or  this 
the  ordinary  tax.  And  the  tone  again  of  the  demand,  “ Both  not  your 
master  pay  the  didrachm  ?”\  is  hardly  the  question  of  a rude  Roman  tax- 
gatherer,  who  nad  detected  any  one  in  the  act  of  evading,  as  he  thought, 
the  tax ; but  exactly  in  keeping,  when  the  duty  of  paying  was  a moral 
one,  which  yet  if  any  declined,  there  was  scarcely  at  hand  any  power  to 
compel  the  payment.^ 

* Be  Monarch.,  1.  2 : 'lepoTTOjiTrol  tQv  % prjydrcov , dgiaTivSrjv  eiriKpidevrec.  The 
whole  passage  reminds  one  much  of  the  collection,  and  the  manner  of  the  transmis- 
sion, of  the  gifts  of  the  faithful  in  Achaia  to  Jerusalem  by  the  hands  of  Paul.  We 
find  from  Cicero’s  oration  Pro  Flacpo,  (c.  28,)  that  one  accusation  made  against  the 
latter  was  that  he  prevented  the  transmission  of  these  temple  dues  to  Jerusalem. 
He  bears  incidentally  witness  to  the  universality  of  the  practice : Cum  aurum,  Ju- 
dseorum  nomine,  quotannis  ex  Italia  et  ex  omnibus  vestris  provinciis  Hierosolymam 
exportari  soleret,  Flaccus  sanxi  edicto,  ne  ex  Asia  exportari  liceret. 

f Bell.  Jud 1.  7,  c.  6,  § 6. 

^ Antt.,  1.  14,  c.  4,  § 4.  Td  yev  ’lepocohvya  i'KOTe'kfj  (popov  'P oyatoLg  ETrotTjaev. 

§ A aoyoAoyelv  vylv  h rl  to  0£<p  E7nrpe'ipaju.ev. 

| Td  dtdpaxya,- with  the  article,  as  something  perfectly  well  known : in  the  plural 
the  first  time,  to  mark  the  number  of  didrachms  that  were  received,  being  one  from 
each  person ; on  the  second,  to  mark  the  yearly  repetition  of  the  payment  from  each. 

Kuinoel  (in  loci)  who  may  be  numbered  among  the  right  interpreters  of  this 


303 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  EISH’s  MOUTH. 

But  the  most  prevailing  argument  of  all,  that  this  was  God’s  money 
which  should  be  rendered  to  God,  and  not  Cesar’s  which  was  to  be  ren- 
dered to  Cesar,  is,  that  there  would  be  no  force  whatever  in  the  Lord’s 
conclusion,  “ Then  are  the  children  free”  as  giving  him  this  exemption, 
unless  it  was  from  dues  owing  to  God,  and  not  to  Cesar,  that  by  the  pre- 
ceding process  of  argument  he  was  claiming  his  freedom.  As  a Son  in 
his  own  house,  he  affirmed  his  exemption  from  the  first.  How  could  he 
on  this  ground  have  claimed  immunity  from  the  last  ? on  the  ground, 
that  is,  of  being  the  son  of  him  on  whose  behalf  the  tax  was  claimed. 
For  he  was  no  son  of  Cesar.  He  might  indeed  have  asserted  his  immu- 
nity on  other  grounds,  though  that  he  would  not,  since  he  had  come 
submitting  himself  during  his  earthly  life  to  every  ordinance  of  man. 
But  this  claim  which  he  does  put  forward,  only  holds  good  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  payment  is  one  made  to  God.  They  who  maintain  the 
contrary  interpretation  are  driven  to  say  that  it  is  his  royal  Davidical 
descent,  on  the  score  of  which  he  claims  this  immunity.  But  neither 
can  this  stand : for  the  argument  then  would  be,  that  because  Jesus  is 
one  king’s  son,  therefore  he  is  exempted  from  the  tribute  owing  to 
another  king,  and  that  other,  one  of  a hostile  dynasty, — in  itself  a most 
insufficient  argument,  and  certainly  not  that  of  the  sacred  text : “ Of 
whom  do  the  kings  of  the  earth  take  oustom  or  tribute  ? of  their  own  chil- 
dren or  of  strangers  ? Peter  saith  unto  him , Of  strangers.  Jesus  saith 
unto  him , Then  are  the  children  free.”* 

We  may  presume,  then,  that  our  Lord  and  Peter,  with  others  also, 
it  is  most  probable,  of  his  disciples,  were  now  returning  to  Capernaum, 
which  was  “his  city,”  after  one  of  their  usual  absences. f The  Lord 
passed  forward  without  question,  but  the  collectors  detained  Peter,  who, 
having  lingered  a little  behind,  was  now  following  his  Lord.  Chrysos- 
tom suggests  that  their  question  may  be  a rude  and  ill-mannered  one : 
“ Does  your  Master  count  himself  exempt  from  the  payment  of  the  or- 
dinary dues'?  we  know  his  freedom  : does  he  mean  to  exercise  it  here?” 
yet  on  the  other  hand  it  may  have  been,  as  I should  suppose  it  was,  the 
exact  contrary.  Having  seen  or  heard  of  the  wonderful  works  which 
Christ  did,  they  may  really  have  been  uncertain  in  what  light  to  regard 

passage,  observes  tliis : Exactores  Romani  acerbius  haud  dubi6  exegissent  tributum 
Csesari  solvendum.  And  in  tbe  Rabbinical  treatise  especially  relating  to  the  manner 
of  collecting  these  dues,  it  is  said : Placid^  a quovis  semisiclum  expetierunt.  Gro- 
tius : Credibile  est  multos,  quia  non  cogebantur,  id  onus  detrectasse. 

* Augustine  ( Quoest . Evang 1. 1,  qu.  23)  helps  it  out  in  another  way:  In  omni 
regno  terreno  intelligendum  est  liberos  esse  regni  filios  . . . Multo  ergo  magis  liberi 
esse  debent  in  quolibet  regno  terreno  filii  regni  illius,  sub  quo  sunt  omnia  regna  terrena. 

f See  Mr.  Greswell’s  Dissertations,  v.  2,  p.  374,  seq. 


304 


THE  STATEE  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 


him,  whether  to  claim  from  him  the  money  or  not,  and  in  this  doubting 
and  inquiring  spirit,  they  may  have  put  the  question  to  Peter.  This 
Theophylact  suggests.  But  after  all,  we  want  that  which  the  history 
has  not  given,  the  tone  in  which  the  question  was  put,  to  know  whether 
it  was  a rude  one  or  the  contrary.  To  their  demand  Peter,  overhasty, 
as  was  so  often  the  case,  at  once  replied  that  his  master  would  pay  the 
money.  No  doubt  zeal  for  his  master’s  honor  made  him  so  quick  to 
pledge  his  Lord : he  was  confident  that  his  piety  would  make  him 
prompt  to  every  payment  sanctioned  and  sanctified  by  God’s  Law. 

Yet  at  the  same  time  there  was  here  on  the  part  of  the  apostle  a 
failing  to  recognize  the  higher  dignity  of  his  Lord : it  was  not  in  this 
spirit  that  he  had  said  a little  while  before,  “ Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God.”  He  understood  not,  or  at  least  for  the  time 
had  lost  sight  of,  his  Lord’s  true  position  and  dignity,  that  he  was  a Son 
over  his  own  house,  not  a servant  in  another’s  house — that  he  was  the 
Head  of  the  theocracy,  not  one  of  its  subordinate  members,  so  that  it 
was  to  him  in  his  Father  that  payments  were  to  be  made,  not  from  him 
to  be  received.  This  last  had  been  out  of  all  reason ; for  he  who  was 
to  be  a ransom  for  all  other  souls,  could  not  properly  give  a ransom  for 
his  own.*  It  was  not  for  him  who  was  “ greater  than  the  temple,”  and 
himself  the  true  temple,  (John  ii.  21,)  identical  with  it  according  to  its 
spiritual  significance,  and  in  whom  the  Shechinah  glory  dwelt,  to  pay 
dues  for  the  support  of  that  other  temple  built  with  hands,  which  was 
now  fast  losing  its  significance,  since  the  true  tabernacle  was  set  up, 
which  the  Lord  had  pitched  and  not  man. 

It  is  then  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  back  Peter,  and  with  him  the 
other  disciples,  to  the  true  recognition  of  himself,  from  which  they  had 
in  part  fallen,  that  the  Lord  puts  to  him  the  question  which  follows ; 
and  being  engaged,  through  Peter’s  hasty  imprudence,  to  the  rendering 
of  the  didrachm,  which  now  he  could  scarcely  recede  from,  yet  did  it  in 
the  remarkable  way  of  this  present  miracle — a miracle  which  should 
testify  that  all  things  served  him,  from  the  greatest  to  the  least,  even  to 
the  fishes  that  walked  through  the  paths  of  the  sea, — that  he  was  Lord 
over  nature,  and  having  nothing,  yet  in  his  Father’s  care  for  him,  was 
truly  possessed  of  all  things,  f Here,  as  so  often  in  the  life  of  our  Lord, 

* Ambrose  {Ep.  'I,  c.  12,  Ad  Justum) : Hoc  est  igitur  didrachma,  quod  exigebatur 
secundum  legem : sed  non  debebat  illud  filius  regis,  sed  alienus.  Quid  enim  se 
Christus  redimeret  ab  hoc  mundo,  qui  yenerat  ut  tolleret  peccatum  mundi  f Quid 
se  a peccato  redimeret,  qui  descenderat,  ut  omnibus  peccatum  dimitteret  ? . . . Quid 
se  redimeret  a morte,  qui  carnem  susceperat,  ut  morte  sua  omnibus  resurrectionem 
adquireret  ? Cf.  Enarr.  in  Ps.  xlviii.  14. 

f The  grand  poem  which  Tholuck  has  translated  from  the  Persian  Mystic  ( Blu - 


THE  STATEE  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 


305 


the  depth  of  his  poverty  and  humiliation  is  lightened  up  by  a gleam  of 
his  glory.  And  thus,  by  the  manner  of  the  payment,  did  he  re-assert 
the  true  dignity  of  his  person,  which  else  by  the  payment  itself  might 
have  been  obscured  and  compromised  in  the  eyes  of  some,  but  which  it 
was  of  all  importance  for  the  disciples  that  they  should  not  lose  sight  of. 
or  forget.  The  miracle,  then,  was  to  supply  a real  need, — slight,  in- 
deed, as  an  outward  need,  for  the  money  could  assuredly  have  been  in 
some  other  and  more  ordinary  ways  procured;  but  as  an  inner  need, 
most  real : in  this,  then,  differing  in  its  essence  from  the  apocryphal 
miracles,  which  are  continually  mere  sports  and  freaks  of  power,  having 
no  ethical  motive  or  meaning  whatever. 

And  we  may  see  this  purpose  of  our  Lord’s  coming  clearly  out  from 
the  very  first.  He  did  not  wait  for  Peter'  to  inform  him  what  he  had 
done,  and  to  what  he  had  engaged  him ; but  as  soon  as  u he  was  come 
into  the  house , Jesus  prevented”  or  anticipated,  his  communication, 
showing  that  he  was  acquainted  with  it  already, — that  he  was  a dis- 
cerner  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart, — that  it  was  for  him  as  though  he 
had  been  present  at  that  conversation  between  his  disciple  and  the  collec- 
tors of  the  money.*  Preventing  him  thus,  he  said,  “ What  thinkest  thou , 
Simon  ? on  what  principle  hast  thou  been  promising  this  for  me  1 is  not 
all  the  analogy  of  things  earthly  against  it  ? Of  whom  do  the  kings  of 
the  earthf  (with  an  emphasis  on  these  last  words,  for  there  is  a silent 
contrasting  of  these  with  the  King  of  heaven,  as  at  Ps.  ii.  2,)  “ take 

thensammlung  aus  der  Morgenl.  Myst. , p.  148,)  tells  exactly  the  same  story,  namely, 
that  all  nature  waits  on  him  who  is  the  friend  of  God,  so  that  all  things  are  his,  and 
his  seeming  poverty  is  but  another  side  of  his  true  riches ; only  that  what  there  is 
only  in  idea,  is  here  clothed  in  the  flesh  and  blood  of  an  actual  fact.  I can  give  but 
a most  inadequate  extract : 

Adham  Ibrahim  sass  einst  am  Meeresstrand, 

Nahte  dort  als  Bettler  sich  sein  Monchgewand. 

Plotzlich  tritt  ein  Emir  mit  Gefolg’  ihn  an, 

Der  vormals  dem  Seelenkonig  unterthan, 

KUsst  den  Fuss  ihm,  und  wird  alsobaid  verwirrt, 

Da  den  Scheich  er  in  der  Kutt’  ansichtig  wird. 

Den,  dem  einst  gehorcht’  ein  weites  Landgebiet, 

Slaunend  er  jetzt  seine  Kutte  nahen  siebt. 


Drauf  der  Scheich  die  Nadel  plotzlich  wirft  in’s  Meer, 

Ruft  dann  laut:  Ihr  Fische,  bringt  die  Nadel  her! 

Alsbald  ragen  hunderttausend  KopF  hervor, 

Jeder  Fisch  bringt  eine  goldne  Nadel  vor. 

Nun  der  Scheich  mit  Ernst  sich  zu  dem  Emir  kehrt: 

Wunderst  du  dich  noch,  dass  ich  die  Kutt’  begehrt? 

* Jerome:  Antequam  Petrus  suggeret,  Dominus  interrogat,  ne  scandalizentur 
discipuli  ad  postulation em  tributi,  quum  videant  eum  nosse  quae  absente  se  gesta  sunt. 


306 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 


custom  or  tribute  ?”* * * §  Christ  argues  here  from  the  less  to  the  greater, 
from  things  earthly  to  things  heavenly,  not  as  though  the  things  earthly 
could  prove  the  things  heavenly ; but,  since  those  are  the  shadows  of 
these,  from  the  shadow  concluding  the  form  of  the  substance.  And 
when  Peter  confessed  that  it  was  not  of  their  own  children,  but  “ of 
strangersf\  then  at  once  he  brought  him  to  the  conclusion  whither  he 
was  leading  him,  that  “ the  children ,”  or  as  it  would  be  better,  “ the 
sons,”  were  afree”\ 

But  this  plural,  u the  sons”  and  not  “ the  Son,”  has  sometimes  been 
brought  against  the  interpretation,  which  would  make  our  Lord  to  have 
had  himself  and  himself  only,  as  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  in  his 
eye  when  he  thus  spake.  Yet  it  is  obvious  that  while  he  is  making  a 
general  statement  of  the  wdrldly  relations  from  which  he  borrows  his 
analogy,  and  by  which  he  is  helping  the  understanding  of  his  disciples, 
as  there  might  be  not  merely  one  but  many  sons  to  a worldly  king,  or 
as  there  are  many  kings  of  whom  he  is  speaking,  so  was  it  natural  for 
him  to  throw  his  speech  into  a plural  form ; and  it  is  just  as  natural, 
when  we  come  to  the  heavenly  order  of  things  which  is  there  shadowed 
forth,  to  restrain  it  to  the  singular,  to  the  one  Son  ; since  to  the  King  of 
heaven,  who  is  set  against  the  kings  of  the  earth,  there  is  but  one,  the 
only-begotten  of  the  Father. § And  the  explanation,  namely,  that  he 

* K r/voog,  the  capitation  tax ; teItj,  customs  or  tolls  on  goods. 

f There  is  no  doubt  a difficulty  in  finding  exactly  the  right  translation  for  dllor- 
pluv.  For  it  is  not  so  strong  as  our  “ strangers ,”  or  the  alieni  of  the  Yulgate,  or 
Luther’s  von  Fremden.  It  means  to  express  no  more  than  those  that  are  not  the  viol, 
that  stand  not  in  their  nearest  and  most  immediate  relation  to  the  king  (qui  non  per- 
tinent ad  familiam  Regis:  Kuinoel).  So  Hammond,  “other  folk,”  and  De  Wette, 
von  ihren  Sohnen,  [which  is  better  than  Luther’s  von  ihren  Kindern.]  oder  von  den 
andern  Leuten.  Compare  for  this  use  of  dllorplog,  Sirac,  xl.  29.  Gfrorer,  ( Die  Heil. 
Sage , v.  2,  p.  56,)  stumbling  at  the  whole  account,  finds  fault  with  this  interpre- 
tation, because  forsooth  the  Jews  were  not  dllorploi , — as  though  they  were  not  so 
in  comparison  with  Christ : and,  again,  because  they  too  were  viol  Qeov, — as  though 
they  were  so  in  any  such  sense  as  he  was.  It  is  most  true  that  from  his  standing 
point,  to  whom  there  is  nothing  in  Christ  different  from  another  man,  the  narrative 
does,  in  his  own  words,  “ suffer  under  incurable  difficulties.” 

$ With  a play  on  the  words,  which  is  probably  much  more  than  a mere  play,  and 
tests  upon  a true  etymology,  so  witnessing  for  the  very  truth  which  Christ  is  asserting 
here,  we  might  say  in  Latin,  Liberi  sunt  liberi.  (Liberi,  the  children,  so  called  in 
opposition  to  the  household,  the  servi : Freund’s  Lat.  Worterbuch , s.  v.  liber.)  Those 
eery  words  do  occur  in  the  noble  Easter  hymn  beginning, 

Cedant  justi  signa  luctus. 

§ Grotius  observes  rightly  that  it  is  the  locus  communis,  which  is  to  account  for 
the  plural : Plurali  numero  utitur,  non  quod  ad  alios  eam'extendat  libertatem,  sed  quod 
tomparatio  id  exigebat,  sumta  non  ab  unius  sed  ab  omnium  Regum  more  ac  con- 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  FISH’S  MOUTH. 


307 


intends  to  extend  the  liberty  to  his  poeple,  to  all  that  in  this  secondary 
sense  are  the  sons  of  God,  cannot  be  admitted : for  it  is  not  the  fact 
concerning  dues  owing  to  God.  Nor  even  if  this  discourse  had  relation 
to  a civil  payment,  would  it  be  true ; however  such  an  interpretation 
might  be  welcome  to  Anabaptists,*  having  found  favor  also  with  some 
of  the  extreme  Romish  canonists,  as  an  argument  for  the  exemption  of 
the  clergy  from  payments  to  the  state,  although  others  among  themselves 
truly  remark  that  it  must  include  all  the  faithful  or  none.f  It  is  not 
thus,  not  as  one  of  many,  not  as  the  first  among  many  sons,  but  as  the 
true  and  only  Son  of  God,  he  claims  this  liberty  for  himself ; and  “ we 
may  observe  by  the  way,  that  the  reasoning  itself  is  a strong  and  con- 
vincing testimony  to  the  proper  Sonship,  and  in  the  capacity  of  Son  to 
the  proper  relationship  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Father,  which  those  who 
deny  that  relationship  will  not  easily  evade  or  impugn.];  There  is  in 
these  words  the  same  implicit  assertion  of  Christ’s  relation  to  God  as  a 
different  one  from  that  of  other  men,  which  there  is  throughout  the 
parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandman,  in  the  distinction  which  is  so 

suetudine.  The  best  defence  of  the  cleaving  to  the  plural  in  the  application  of  the 
words  is  that  made  by  Cocceius : Christus  ostendit  nec  se,  qui  Filius  Dei  est,  obligari 
ad  didrachma  solvendum,  tanquam  Tivrpov  animae  suae,  nec  suos  discipulos,  qui  ab 
ipso  haereditant  libertatem,  et  non  argento  redimuntur  (Es.  lii.  3)  sed  precioso  ipsius 
sanguine  (1  Pet.  i.  18,  19)  et  facti  sunt  filii  Dei  vivi  (Hos.  i.  10)  amplius  teneri  ad 
servitutem  figurae.  Olshausen  follows  him  in  this. 

* The  Anabaptist  conclusions  which  might  be  drawn  from  an  abuse  of  the  pas- 
sage, are  met  on  right  general  grounds  by  Aquinas  (Sum.  Theol.,  2a  2®,  104,  art.  6,) 
though  he  has  not  any  very  precise  insight  into  the  meaning  of  this  history.  Milton 
(Defence  of  the  People  of  England,  c.  3)  makes  exceedingly  unfair  use  of  this 
passage. 

f Tirinus  (in  loc.) : Nam  pari  jure  omnes  justi,  immo  onmes  Christiani  exempti 
essent.  Michaelis  affirms  that  others  too  have  pushed  these  words  to  the  asserting  the 
same  liberty ; for  he  tells  a story  (Mosaische  Recht,  v.  3,  p.  210)  of  having  himself, 
in  travelling,  seen  a Pietist  cheat  the  revenue  before  his  eyes ; and  when  he  asked  him 
how  he  could  find  conscience  to  do  so,  the  other  defended  himself  with  these  words, 
“ Then  are  the  children  free."  The  story  is,  unhappily,  only  too  welcome  to  him. 

\ G-reswell’s  Dissert.,  v.  2,  p.  736.  Chrysostom  uses  the  same  argument.  I know 
not  whether  any  use  was  made  of  this  passage  in  the  Arian  controversy  by  those 
who  were  upholding  the  Catholic  faith  ; but  Hilary,  a confessor  and  standard-bearer, 
for  the  truth  in  that  great  conflict,  does  distinctly  bring  out  how  the  Godhead  of 
Christ  is  involved  in  this  argument  (Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc.) : Didrachma  tamquam 
ab  homine  poscebatur  a Christo.  Sed  ut  ostenderet  Legi  se  non  esse  subjectum,  ut 
in  se  paternce  dignitatis  gloriam  contestaretur,  terreni  privilegii  posuit  exemplum  ■ 
censu  aut  tributis  regum  filios  non  teneri,  potiusque  se  redemtorem  animae  nostroe 
corporisque  esse  quam  in  redemptionem  sui  aliquid  postulandum  ; quia  Regis  Filium 
extra  communionem  oporteret  esse  reliquorum. 


308 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  EISH’s  MOUTH. 


markedly  drawn  between  the  son  and  the  servants  of  the  householder: 
and  these  statements  on  the  matter,  which  are  thus,  as  it  were,  bedded 
deep  in  Scripture,  assumed  as  the  foundation  of  further  superstructures, 
not  lying  on  the  surface,  or  contained  in  single  isolated  expressions, 
will  always,  carry  with  them  a peculiar  weight.  It  is  true  that  for  the 
unbelieving,  for  those  that  are  determined  not  to  be  convinced,  there  is 
always  a loop-hole  of  escape,  as  from  other  declarations,  so  also  from 
these;  in  the  present  instance,  the  plural  “sons”  affords  for  those  who 
seek  it  the  desired  opportunity  of  evasion. 

But  under  this  protest  Christ  will  pay  the  money ; “ Lest  we  should 
offend  them , lest  they  should  say  we  despise  the  temple,,  or  should  count 
that  we  are  come  to  destroy  the  law,” — lest  they  who  knew  not  the  aw- 
ful secret  of  his  birth,  should  imagine  that  he  was  using  a false  liberty  ;* 
or  even  lest  it  might  appear  unseemly  if  he  went  back  from  that  to  which 
his  follower  had  engaged  him,  he  will  pay  it;  Thus  will  he  provide 
things  honest  in  the  sight  of  men;  There  was  no  need,  only  a becom 
ingness,  in  the  payment ; in  the  same  wTay  as  there  was  no  necessity 
for  his  baptism;  it  was  that  whereto  of  his  own  choice  he  willingly 
submitted ; nor  yet  for  the  circumcision  which  he  received  in  his  flesh ; 
but  he  took  on  him  the  humiliations  of  the  law,  that  he  might  deliver 
from  under  the  law.  And  here  comes  out  the  deeper  meaning  of  the 
Lord  not  paying  for  himself  only,  but  for  Peter,  the  representative  of 
all  the  faithful, — “ for  me  and  for  thee  ff — he  came  under  the  same 
yoke  with  men,  that  they  might  enter  into  the  same  freedom  which  was 
his.f  But,  as  on  other  occasions,  at  his  presentation  in  the  temple, 
(Luke  ii.  22 — 24,)  and  again  at  his  baptism,  there  was  something  more 
than  common  which  should  hinder  the  misunderstanding  of  that  which 
was  done ; — at  the  presentation,  in  Simeon’s  song  and  Anna’s  thanks- 
giving: at  the  baptism,  first  in  John’s  reluctance  to  baptize  him,  and 

* Chrysostom  {Horn.  64  in  Joh.)  understands  in  a remarkably  different  way  these 
V^ords,  “ Lest  we  should  offend  them,;'3  lest,  when  this  secret  of  our  heavenly  birth, 
and  our  consequent  exemption  from  tribute  is  told  them,  they  should  be  unable  to 
receive  it ; lest  we  should  thus  put  a stumbling-block  in  their  way,  revealing  to  them 
something  which  they  were  altogether  unable  to  receive. 

\ Ambrose  (Hp.  7,  c.  18,  Ad  Justum)'.  Ideo  didrachmum  solvi  jubet  pro  se  et 
Petro,  quia  uterque  sub  Lege  generati.  Jubet  ergo  secundum  Legem  solvi,  ut  eos 
qul  sub  Lege  erant  redimeret.  And  Augustine,  on.  the  words  which  he  found  Fs 
cxxxvii.  8 : Domine,  retribues  pro  me,  adduces  this  history,  saying,  Nihil  debebat : 
pro  se  non  reddidit,  sed  pro  nobis  reddidit;  and  again  {Seym  155,  c.  7):  Mysteriun? 
latebat : Christus  tamen  tributum  non  debitum  persolvebat.  Sic  persolvit  et  mortem; 
non  debebat,  et  persolvebat.  Ille  nisi  indebitum  solvetet,  nunquam  nos  a debito 
liberaret.  Jerome  ( Comm,  in  Matth.y  in  loc.) : Ut  ostenderetur  similitudo  carnis,  dum 
eodum  et  servus  et  Dominus  pretio  liberatiir. 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  EISH’s  MOUTH. 


309 


then  in  the  ope  ned  heaven  and  the  voice  from  thence ; — so  also  is  there 
here  a protest  of  Christ’s  immunity  from  the  present  payment,  first  in 
his  own  words,  “ Then  are  the  children  free”  and  next  in  the  novel 
method  by  which  he  supplies  the  emergent  need.* * * § 

For  putting  back  Peter  to  his  old  vocation,  he  says,  “ Go  thou  to  the 
sea , and  cast  a hook , and  take  up  the  fish  that  first  cometh  up  and 
when  thou  hast  opened  his  mouth , thou  shalt  find  a piece  of  money ,”  or  “ a 
stater,”  as  it  is  in  the  margin.  It  is  remarkable,  and  a solitary  instance 
of  the  kind,  that  the  issue  of  the  bidding  is  not  told  us : but  we  are,  of 
course,  meant  to  understand  that  at  his  Lord’s  command  Peter  resumed 
his  old  occupation,  went  to  the  neighboring  lake,  cast  in  his  hook,  and 
in  the  mouth  of  the  first  fish  that  rose  to  it,  found,  according  to  his 
Lord’s  word,  the  money  that  was  needed.  “ That  takef^  and  give  unto 
them  for  me  and  thee.”§  He  says  not  “ for  us,”  but  as  elsewhere,  “ I 
ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your  Father ; and  to  my  God  and  your  God,” 
(John  xxv.  17,)  so  does  he  use  the  same  language  here;  for  while  he 
has  made  common  part  with  his  brethren,  yet  he  has  done  this  by  an 
act  of  condescension,  not  by  a necessity  of  nature ; and  for  them  it 
greatly  imports  that  they  should  not  confound  the  two,  but  see  ever 
clearly  that  here  is  a delivered  and  a deliverer,  a ransomed  and  a ran- 
somer, however  to  the  natural  eye  it  may  seem  that  there  are  two  who 
alike  are  ransomed. 

* Bengel:  In  medio  actu  submissions  emicat  majestas.  And  Clarius:  Reddit 
ergo  censum,  sed  ex  ore  piscis  acceptum,  ut  agnoscatur  majestas.  So  too  Origen 
{Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc.)  recognizes  a saving  of  the  Lord’s  dignity  in  tile  mode  of 
the  payment.  Of  course,  when  we  speak  of  this  saving  of  his  dignity,  it  is  of  a saving, 
not  for  his  own  sake,  but  for  men’s,  since  it  is  most  important  for  them  that  they  think 
not  unworthily  of  him.  In  other  cases,  where  misapprehension  was  possible,  we  find 
a like  care  for  this.  (John  xi.  41,  42.) 

f This  does  not  mean  the  first  that  he  drew  up  with  his  line,  but  the  first  that 
ascended  from  the  deeper  waters  to  his  hook. 

X Moule  ( Heraldry  of  Fish)  gives  the  natural  mythology  connected  with  this 
miracle.  He  says,  “ A.  popular  idea  assigns  the  dark  marks  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
haddock  to  the  impression  left  by  St.  Peter  with  his  finger  and  thumb,  when  he  took 
the  tribute  money  out  of  the  fish’s  mouth  at  Capernaum  ; but  the  haddock  certainly 
does  not  now  exist  in  the  seas  of  the  country  where  the  miracle  was  performed  .... 
The  dory,  called  St.  Peter’s  fish  in  several  countries  of  Europe,  contends  with  the 
haddock  the  honor  of  bearing  the  marks  of  the  apostle’s  fingers,  an  impression  trans- 
mitted to  posterity  as  a perpetual  memorial  of  the  miracle.  The  name  of  the  dory 
is  hence  asserted  to  be  derived  from  the  French  adore,  worshipped. 

§ Observe  the  dvr l kpov  nal  gov,  (cf.  Matth.,  xx.  28,) — another  proof  that  we 
have  here  to  do  with  the  ransom  for  persons,  a price  given  in  their  stead,  with  a 
reference  to  the  original  institution  of  this  payment,  and  so  another  argument,  if  that 
were  needed,  for  the  correctness  of  the  view  maintained  at  the  outset. 


310 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  FISH  S MOUTH. 


As  has  been  observed  on  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  the  mira- 
cle does  not  lie  only  in  a foreknowledge  on  the  Lord’s  part  that  so  it 
should  be  in  the  first  fish  which  came  up,  for  it  was  not  merely  that  he 
foreknew  the  fact ; but  he  himself,  by  the  mysterious  potency  of  his 
will,  which  ran  through  all  nature,  drew  the  particular  fish  to  that  spot 
at  that  moment,  and  ordained  that  it  should  swallow  the  hook.  Compare 
Jon.  i.  17,  “The  Lord  had  'prepared  a great  fish  to  swallow  up  Jonah.” 
Thus  we  see  the  sphere  of  animal  life  unconsciously  obedient  to  his 
will ; that  also  is  not  out  of  God,  but  moves  in  him,  as  does  every  other 
creature.  (1  Kin.  xiii.  24;  xx.  36;  Amos  ix.  3.) 

All  attempts  to  get  rid  of  a miracle,  and  to  make  the  Evangelist  to 
be  telling,  and  meaning  to  tell,  an  ordinary  transaction,  as  the  scheme 
for  instance  of  Paulus,  who  will  have  it  that  the  Lord  bade  Peter  go 
and  catch  as  many  fish  as  would  sell  for  the  required  sum,  and  who 
maintains  that  this  actually  lies  in  the  words, — all  such,  it  is  at  once 
evident  are  hopelessly  absurd.*  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  idle 


* His  honesty  and  his  Greek  keep  admirable  company.  II gurov  ixOvv  he  takes 
collectively,  primum  quemque  piscem,  uvotljag  to  oTopa  avrov  solvens  eum  ab  hamo, 
evp^aeig  araTjjpa  vendendo  piscem  statera  tibi  comparabis.  This  has  not  even  the 
merit  of  novelty ; for  I find  the  same  scheme  mentioned  in  Kocher’s  Analecta  (in 
loc.),  published  in  1766 : Piscem  capies  quem  pro  statere  vendere  poteris.  In  a later 
work,  however,  Paulus  desires  to  amend  his  plea,  and  uvoi^ag  to  oTopa  is  no  longer, 
opening  the  fish’s  mouth  to  take  out  the  hook,  but,  opening  thine  own  mouth,  i.  e., 
crying  the  fish  for  sale,  avTov  (adverbially)  there,  upon  the  spot,  evprjoeig  oraT^pa  thou 
wilt  earn  a stater.  Another  of  the  same  school  (see  Kuinoel,  in  loc.)  will  have  that 
the  whole  speech  is  a playful  irony  on  the  Lord’s  part,  whereby  he  would  show  Peter 
the  impossible  payment  to  which  he  has  pledged  him,  when  money  they  had  none  in 
hand ; as  though  he  had  said,  “ The  next  thing  which  you  had  better  do  is  to  go  and 
catch  us  a fish,  and  find  in  it  the  piece  of  money  which  is  to  pay  this  tax  for  which 
you  have  engaged,” — not  as  meaning  that  he  should  actually  do  this,  but  as  a slight 
and  kindly  rebuke.  It  was  reserved,  however,  for  the  yet  more  modern  or  mythic 
school  of  interpreters  to  find  other  difficulties  here  besides  the  general  one  of  there 
being  a miracle  at  all.  “How,”  exclaims  one  of  the  chiefest  of  these,  (Strauss, 
Leben  Jem,  v.  2,  p.  195,)  “ could  the  fish  retain  the  stater  in  its  mouth  ? the  coin 
must  needs  have  dropt  out  while  it  was  opening  its  jaws  to  swallow  the  hook : and, 
moreover,  it  is  not  in  the  mouths,  but  in  the  bellies,  of  fishes  that  precious  things  are 
commonly  found.”  Such  is  the  objection  against  which  this  history  is  to  prove  too 
weak  to  stand ! It  can  only  be  matched  with  the  objection  which  another  interpreter 
makes  to  the  historic  accuracy  of  the  account  of  Daniel  and  the  lion’s  den ; namely, 
that  if  a stone  was  laid  at  the  mouth  of  the  den,  the  lions  must  needs  have  been  suf- 
focated,— so  that  nothing  will  satisfy  him  but  that  the  den’s  mouth  must  have  been 
by  this  stone  hermetically  sealed.  Surely  to  anticipate  the  above  difficulty,  and  tc 
evade  it,  Juvencus  gives  uvoUjac  to  aTopa,  with  this  variation, 


Hujus  pandantur  scis si  penetralia  ventrisl 


THE  STATER  IN  THE  EISH’s  MOUTH. 


311 


and  unwarranted  multiplication  of  miracles,  to  assume  that  the  statei 
was  created  for  the  occasion,* * * §  and  it  is  in  fact  a stepping  out  of  the  re- 
gion of  miracle  altogether  into  that  of  absolute  creation;  for  in  the 
miracle,  as  distinguished  from  the  act  of  pure  creation,  there  is  always 
a nature-basis  to  which  the  divine  power  which  works  the  wonder,  more 
or  less  closely  links  itself.  That  divine  power  which  dwelt  in  Christ, 
restored,  as  in  the  case  of  the  sick  and  blind ; it  multiplied,  as  the 
bread  in  the  wilderness;  it  ennobled,  as  the  water  at  Cana;  it  quickened, 
as  Lazarus  and  others ; it  brought  together,  as  here,  by  wonderful  coin- 
cidences, the  already  existing ; but,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  it  formed  no 
new  limbs ; it  made  no  bread,  no  wine,  out  of  nothing ; it  created  no 
new  men : • it  did  not,  as  far  as  our  records  reach,  pass  over  on  any  one 
occasion  into  the  region  of  absolute  creation.f 

The  allegorical  interpretations,  or  rather  uses,  of  this  miracle,  for 
they  are  seldom  meant  for  more,  have  not  in  them  much  to  attract,  nei- 
ther that  of  Clement, J with  which  Theophylact  mainly  agrees,  that  each 
skilful  fisher  of  men  will,  like  Peter,  remove  the  coin  of  pride  and 
avarice  and  luxury,  from  the  mouth  of  them  whom  they  have  drawn 
up  by  the  hook  of  the  Gospel  from  the  waste  waters  of  the  world ; nor 
yet  that  which  St.  Ambrose  brings  forward,  wherein  the  stater  plays 
altogether  a different,  indeed,  an  opposite  part  ;§  nor  has  Augustine’s] 
more  to  draw  forth  our  assent.  The  miracle  is  rich  enough  already  in 
meaning  and  in  teaching,  without  our  seeking  to  press  it  further. 

* So  does  Seb.  Schmidt,  ( Fascic . Hiss.,  p.  796.)  Chrysostom  {Horn.  87  in  Joh.) 
has  a like  explanation  of  the  fish  which  the  disciples  find  ready  upon  the  shore  (John 
xxi.  9) ; in  the  same  way  many  assume  that  Christ  not  merely  gave  sight  to,  but 
made  organs  of  vision  for,  the  man  who  was  born  blind.  (John  ix.) 

f The  accounts  are  numerous  of  precious  things  being  found  in  the  bellies  of 
fishes.  The  story  of  Polycrates’  ring  is  well  known ; (Herod.,  1.  3,  c.  42 ;)  and  in 
Jewish  legend  Solomon,  having  lost  his  ring  of  power,  recovered  it  in  the  same  unex- 
pected way.  (Eisenmengeb’s  Entdeckt.  Judenth .,  v.  1,  p.  360.)  Augustine  {He  Civ. 
Dei,  L 22,  c.  8)  gives  the  account  of  a like  incident  in  his  own  day,  in  which  he  sees 
a providential  dealing  of  God  to  answer  the  prayer,  and  supply  the  need,  of  one  of 
his  servants. 

X Poedag .,  1.  2,  v.  1,  p.  172,  Potter’s  ed.  Cf.  Origen,  Comm,  in  Hatth.,  for  the 
same. 

§ Hexaem.,  L 5,  c.  6 : Ideo  misit  retia,  et  complexus  est  Stephanum,  qui  de 
Evangelio  primus  ascendit  [ rov  dvaj3dvra  Trpwrov]  habens  in  ore  suo  staterem  justi- 
tise.  Unde  confessione  constanti  clamavit,  dicens : Ecce  video  ccelos  apertos,  et  Filium 
hominis  stantem  ad  dexteram  Dei.  So  Hilary,  Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc. 

| Enarr.  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  8 : Primum  surgentem  de  mari,  primogenitum  a mortuis  ; 
for  by  him,  he  says,  with  the  error  which  runs  through  his  whole  interpretation,  ab 
exactione  hujus  seculi  liberamur. 


XXIX. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 

John  xi.  1 — 54. 

The  fact  of  this  miracle  being  passed  over  altogether  by  the  first  three 
Evangelists, — a miracle  so  memorable  in  itself,  so  weighty  too  in  its 
consequences,  since  the  final  and  absolute  determination  to  put  the  Lord 
out  of  the  way  resulted  immediately  from  it, — this  must  ever  remain  a 
mystery : the  utmost  that  can  be  hoped  is  to  suggest  some  probable 
solution  of  the  omission.  The  following  among  the  explanations  which 
have  been  offered  have  found  most  favor.  First,  It  has  been  said  by 
some  that  the  three  earlier  Evangelists,  writing  in  Palestine,  and  while 
Lazarus  was  yet  alive,  or  at  least  while  some  of  his  family  yet  sur- 
vived, would  not  willingly  draw  attention,  and  it  might  be,  persecution 
upon  them  ; but  that  no  such  causes  hindered  St.  John,  who  wrote  at  a 
much  later  peiiod,  and  out  of  Palestine,  from  bringing  forward  this 
miracle.  The  omission  on  their  part,  and  the  mention  upon  his,  will 
then  be  a parallel  to  a like  omission  and  mention  in  regard  of  the  disci- 
ple who  actually  smote  off  the  ear  of  the  high  priest’s  servant.  Only 
St.  John  mentions  that  it  was  Peter  who  did  it.  (xviii.  10.)  This  is 
Olshausen’s  view,  and  that  of  Grotius  before  him,  who  refers  to  John 
xii.  10,  in  proof  of  the  danger  that  ensued  to  Lazarus  from  being  this 
living  witness  of  Christ’s  power.  But  how  far-fetched  a theory  is  this  ! 
At  the  furthest  it  would  apply  only  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew ; that 
of  St.  Mark  was  probably  written  at  Rome,  and  for  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, certainly  not  in  Palestine;  as  little  was  that  of  St.  Luke,  which 
was  addressed  to  his  friend  Theophilus,  whom  many  intimations  in  that 
Gospel  would  make  us  conclude  to  have  lived  in  Italy.  Moreover,  the 
existence  of  that  danger,  and  of  those  snares  against  his  life,  while  the 
miracle  and  the  impression  of  the  miracle  were  yet  fresh,  is  no  proof  of 


THE  KAISIHG  OF  LAZAKUS. 


313 


their  existence  long  years  after.  The  tide  of  things  had  swept  onward ; 
new  objects  of  hostility  had  arisen  : — not  to  say  that  if  there  was  danger, 
and  if  the  danger  would  have  been  thus  augmented,  yet  Lazarus  was 
now  a Christian,  and  would  not  have  shrunk  from  that  danger,  nor 
would  those  who  truly  loved  him  have  desired  to  save  him  from  the  post 
of  honorable  peril.  Tor  what  else  would  it  have  been,  but  to  have 
shrunk  from  confessing  Christ,  for  him  to  have  desired  that  a work 
which  revealed  so  much  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  should  remain  un- 
told, lest  some  persecution  or  danger  might  from  the  telling  accrue  to 
himself? 

Others  again,  feeling  this  explanation  to  be  insufficient,  have  ob- 
served how'  the  three  earlier  Evangelists  have  confined  themselves 
almost  entirely  to  the  miracles  that  the  Lord  wrought  in  Galilee,  leaving 
those  wrought  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neighborhood  nearly  untouched,  and 
that  so  they  came  to  omit  this.*  It  is  perfectly  true  that  they  did  so. 
But  this  is  not  explaining,  it  is  only  stating  in  other  words  the  fact 
which  has  to  be  explained ; and  the  question  still  remains,  Why  they 
should  have  done  so  ? and  to  this  it  is  difficult  to  find  now  the  satisfac- 
tory answer. 

In  the  house  of  Martha  at  Bethany,  for  St.  Luke  (x.  38)  speaks  of 
her  as  if  alone  the  mistress  of  the  house,  the  Lord  had  often  found  a 
hospitable  reception;  and  not  in  the  house  only;  he  had  found  too  a 
place  in  the  hearts  of  the  united  and  happy  family  which  abode  under 
that  roof ; and  he  loved  with  a peculiar  human  affection  “ Martha , and 
her  sister , and  Lazarus^\  It  was  to  Bethany,  after  the  day’s  task  was 
over  in  the  hostile  city,  that  probably  he  was  often  wont  to  retire  for 
the  night;  (Mark  xi.  11 — 19;)  its  immediate  nearness  to  the  city, — it 

* Thus  Meander,  Leben  Jesu.  p.  35*1. 

f Here,  as  throughout  the  Evangelical  history,  there  is  an  exceeding  scantiness  in 
all  the  circumstantial  notices  concerning  the  persons  mentioned  ; that  only  being  re- 
lated which  was  absolutely  necessary  to  make  the  history  intelligible ; and  all  atten- 
tion being  directed  to  the  portraying  the  spiritual  life  and  what  bore  upon  this. 
Whether  Martha  was  ah  early  widow,  with  whom  her  sister,  and  Lazarus,  a younger 
brother,  resided,  or  what  other  may  have  been  the  constitution  of  the  household,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine. — I cannot  at  all  consent  with  Mr.  Greswell’s  ingenious  essay, 
On  the  village  of  Martha  and  Mary,  {Dissert.,  v.  2,  p.  545,)  of  which . the  aim  is  to 
prove  that  in  St.  John’s  designation  of  Lazarus,  d7rd  B rjOaviag  means  one  thing,  the 
present  place  of  his  residence,  and  kit  T?/g  KwfiTje  M aptag  real  M apdag  another,  the  vil- 
lage of  his  birth,  which  he  accounts  to  have  been  some  Galilean  village,  where  the 
Lord  had  before  been  entertained  by  the  sisters,  (Luke  x.  38,)  and  from  whence  they 
had  migrated  to  Bethany,  during  the  later  period  of  his  ministry  ; — well  worthy  as 
the  essay  is  of  perusal. 


40 


314 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


was  not  more  than  fifteen  furlongs  distant, — allowing  him  to  return 
thither  betimes  in  the  morning.  And  in  the  circle  of  this  family,  with 
Mary,  who  “ sat  at  his  feet  and  heard  his  words,”  with  Martha,  who 
was  only  divided  between  this  and  the  desire  to  pay  as  much  outward 
honor  as  she  could  to  her  divine  guest,  with  Lazarus  his  friend,  we  may 
think  of  him  as  often  wont  to  find  rest  and  refreshment,  after  a day 
spent  amid  the  contradiction  of  sinners,  and  among  the  men  who  daily 
mistook  and  wrested  his  words. 

But  now  there  has  fallen  a cloud  upon  this  happy  household  of  love  ; 
for  not  they  even  whom  Christ  loves  are  exempt  from  their  share  of 
earthly  trouble  and  anguish;  rather  are  they  bound  over  to  it  the  more 
surely.  Lazarus  is  sick ; and  the  sisters  in  their  need  turn  to  him,  whom, 
it  may  be,  they  have  themselves  proved  to  be  a helper  in  every  time 
of  trouble,  whom  at  any  rate  they  have  beheld  to  be  such  in  the  ex- 
tremest  needs  of  others.  He  is  at  a distance,  beyond  Jordan,  probably 
at  Bethabara,  having  withdrawn  thither  from  the  fury  of  his  adversa- 
ries; (John  x.  39,  40;  cf.  John  i.  28;)  but  the  place  of  his  conceal- 
ment, or  retirement  rather,  is  known  to  the  friendly  family,  and  they 
send  a messenger  with  these  tidings,  “ Lord , behold , he  whom  thou  lovesi 
is  sick”  Very  beautiful  is  it  to  observe  their  confidence  in  him ; they 
take  it  for  granted  that  this  announcement  will  be  sufficient,  and  say  no 
more ; they  do  not  urge  him  to  come ; they  only  tell  their  need,  as 
being  sure  that  this  will  be  enough ; he  does  not  love,  and  forsake  them 
whom  he  loves.*  It  is  but  a day’s  journey  from  Bethabara  to  Bethany, 
so  that  they  securely  count  that  help  will  not  tarry  long. 

The  words  with  which  the  Lord  receives  the  message,  and  which 
we  are  to  take  as  spoken,  in  the  hearing  indeed  of  the  apostles,  yet 
primarily  to  the  messenger,  and  for  him  to  bring  back  to  them  that  sent 
him,  “ This  sickness  is  not  unto  death”]  are  purposely  enigmatical,  and 
must  have  greatly  tried  the  faith  of  the  sisters.  For  by  the  time  that 
the  messenger  returned,  it  is  probable  that  Lazarus  was  already  dead. 
Sorely  therefore  must  this  confident  assurance  that  the  issue  of  the  sick- 
ness should  not  be  death,  have  perplexed  them.  Could  it  be  that  their 
divine  friend  had  deceived  them,  or  had  been  himself  deceived  1 Why 
had  he  not  made  the  issue  certain  by  himself  coming,  or,  if  aught  had 
hindered  that,  by  speaking  that  word  which  even  at  a distance  was 
effectual  to  heal,  that  word  which  he  had  spoken  for  others,  for  those 

* Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  AO):  Non  dixerunt,  Yeni.  Amanti  enim  tan- 
tummodo  nuntiandum  fuit. . . .Sufficit  ut  noveris;  non  enim  amas,  et  deseris. 

f IT pog  davatov.  So  1 John  v.  16 ; cf.  1 Kin.  xvii.  17 ; and  2 Kin.  xx.  1 (LXXJ 
where  of  Hezekiah  it  is  said,  elg  duvarov. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZAKUS. 


315 


that  were  well  nigh  strangers  to  him,  and  they  had  been  saved  ? But 
as  with  so  many  other  of  the  divine  promises,  which  seem  to  us  for  the 
moment  to  come  to  nothing  and  utterly  to  fail,  and  this  because  we  so' 
little  dream  of  the  resources  of  the  divine  love,  and  are  ever  limiting 
them  by  our  knowledge  of  them,  so  was  it  with  this  word, — a perplex- 
ing riddle,  till  the  event  had  made  it  plain.  Even  now,  in  the  eyes  of 
him  who  saw  the  end  from  the  beginning,  that  sickness  was  not  unto 
death;  as  they  too  should  acknowledge  that  it  was  not,  when  they 
should  find  that  death  was  not  to  be  its  last  issue,  but  only  a moment 
of  transition  to  a restored,  and  a higher  life  than  any  which  yet  Lazarus 
had  lived ; — a higher  life,  for  when  Christ  declares  the  meaning  of  that 
sickness,  that  it  was  “ for  the  glory  of  God , that  the  Son  of  God  might  be 
glorified  thereby ,”  he  certainly  includes  in  this  “ glory  of  God ” the  per- 
fecting for  Lazarus  of  his  own  spiritual  being,  as  we  cannot  doubt  that 
it  was  perfected  through  these  wondrous  events  of  his  existence.  This 
was  his  hard  yet  blessed  passage  into  life.  That  which  was  the  decisive 
crisis  in  his  spiritual  development  was  also  a signal  moment  in  the 
gradual  revelation  of  the  glory  of  Christ  unto  the  world.  The  Son  of 
God  was  first  glorified  in  Lazarus,  and  then  on  him,  and  through  him  to 
the  world.  (Compare  the  exact  parallel,  John  ix.  2,  3.) 

It  has  been  sometimes  proposed  to  connect  ver.  5 with  what  goes 
before,  so  making  it  to  contain  an  explanation  of  the  message,  and  of  the 
ready  confidence  which  the  sisters  show  in  the  Lord’s  help ; or  some- 
times, as  by  Olshausen,  with  the  verse  following;  and  then  St.  John 
will  be  bringing  out  into  the  strongest  contrast  the  Lord’s  love  to  the 
distressed  family  at  Bethany,  and  his  taTrying  notwithstanding  for  two 
days  where  he  was,  even  after  the  message  claiming  his  help  had 
reached  him.  The  Evangelist  will  in  that  case  be  suggesting  to  the 
thoughtful  reader  all  that  is  involved  in  this  love  which  waited  so  long, 
ere  it  would  step  in  to  save.  But  I am  inclined  to  think  that  Maldona- 
tus  has  caught  a truer  view  of  the  sequence  of  thought,  when  he  connects 
this  verse  not  with  the  one , but  with  the  two  which  follow.  He  under- 
stands St.  John  to  say,  Jesus  loved  Martha  and  the  others ; when  there- 
fore he  heard  that  Lazarus  was  sick,  he  abode  indeed  two  days  where 
he  was,  but  “ then  after  that  saith  he  to  his  disciples , Let  us  go  into  Judea 
again.”  To  conceive  any  other  reason  for  his  tarrying  where  he  was 
those  two  days,  than  that  he  might  have  room  to  work  that  great  mira- 
cle, is  highly  unnatural.  Sometimes  it  has  been  assumed  that  he  had 
in  hand  some  great  work  for  the  kingdom  of  God  where  he  was,  some 
work  which  would  not  endure  to  be  left,  and  which  therefore  he  could 
not  quit  for  the  most  pressing  calls  of  private  friendship.  (See  x.  41, 
42.)  But  he  could  have  healed  with  his  word  at  a distance  as  easily  as 


316 


THE  EAISIHG  OF  LA2AEUS. 


by  his  actual  presence  ; and  this  tarrying  was  rathe:  a part  of  the  se- 
vere yet  faithful  .discipline  of  divine  love ; he  would  let  the  need  come 
‘to  the  highest  before  he  interfered.  We  have  frequent  instances  of  the 
like.  He  comes  in  with  his  mighty  help,  but  not  till  every  other  help 
has  failed,  till  even  his  promise  has  seemed  to  the  weak  faith  of  men  to 
have  failed  and  come  utterly  to  nothing.  . 

But  now,  when  all  things  are  ready  for  him,  he  will  return  to  Judea 
again.  The  wondering  and  trembling  disciples  remonstrate  ; it  was  but 
now  that  he  escaped  instant  death  at  the  hands  of  his  Jewish  foes ; it 
was  the  necessity  of  withdrawing  from  their  active  malice  which  brought 
him  here,  and  will  he  how  affront  that  danger  anew  1 In  these  their 
remonstrances  with  their  Lord,  their  entreaties  that  he  should  not  return 
to  the  scene  of  his  former  perils,  there  spake  out  indeed  truest  love  to 
him ; but  with  it  were  mingled  apprehensions  for  their  own  safety,  as 
is  revealed  in  ver.  16,  where  Thomas  takes  it  for  granted  that  to  re- 
turn with  him  is  to  die  with  him.  We  must  keep  this  in  mind,  if  we 
would  understand  our  Lord’s  answer  to  their  remonstrance,  “ Are  there 
not  twelve  hours  in  the  day?”  or,  rather,  “Are  not  the  hours  of  the  day 
twelve1?” — in  other  words,  “Is  there  not  a time  which  is  not  cut  short 
or  abridged  by  premature  darkness,  but  consists  of  twelve  full  hours,* 
during  any  part  of  which  a man  may  walk  and  work  without  stumbling, 
being  enlightened  by  the  light  of  this  world,  by  the  natural  sun  in  the 
heavens  ? Such  an  unconcluded  day  there  is  now  for  me,  a day  during 
any  part  of  which  I can  safely  accomplish  the  work  given  me  by  my 
Father,  whose  light  I,  in  like  manner,  behold.  So  long  as  the  day,  the 
time  appointed  by  my  Father  for  my  earthly  walk,  endures,  so  long  as 
there  is  any  work  for  me  yet  to  do,  I am  safe,  and  you  are  safe  in  my 
company.”  The  passage  which  yields  the  most  helps  to  fix  its  mean- 
ing, is*  the  very  similar  one  spoken  under  similar  circumstances  of  dan- 
ger, John  ix.  4.  And  then,  at  ver.  10,  leaving  all  allusion  to  himself 
and  contemplating  his  disciples  alone,  he  links  another  thought  to  this, 
and  warns  them  that  they  never  walk  otherwise  than  as  seeing  him  who 
is  the  Light  of  men, — they  never  walk  as  in  the  night, — they  undertake 
no  task,  they  affront  no  danger,  unless  looking  to  him,  unless  they  can 
say.  The  Lord  is  my  Light ; for  so  to  do  were  to  involve  themselves  in 

* Maldonatus : Certum  esse  atque  statum  spatium  Dei,  quod  minui  non  possit ; 
duodecim  enim  constare  koris ; intra  id  spatium  si  quis  ambulat,  sine  periculo  ambu- 
lare.  Calvin : Yocatio  Dei  instar  lucis  diurnse  est,  quae  nos  errare  vel  impingere  non 
patitur.  Quisquis  ergo  Dei  verbo  obtemperat,  nec  quidquam  aggrediturnisi  ejus jussu, 
ilium  quoque  habere  coelo  ducem  et  directorem,  et  kac  fiducia  secure  et  intrepid^  viam 
arripere  potest.  Of.  Ps.  xc.  11.  Grotius:  Quanto  ergo  magis  tuto  ambulo,  qui  prae- 
lucentem  mihi  habeo  lucem  supracoelestem,  ac  divinam  cognitionem  Paterni  propositi  ? 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


31Y 


sure  peril  and  temptation.  The  final  words  which  explain  why  such  a 
walker  in  the  night  should  stumble,  “ because  there  is  no  light  in  him,” 
are  a forsaking  of  the  figure  which  would  have  required  something  of 
this  kind,  “ there  is  no  light  above  him but  in  the  spiritual  world  it  is 
one  and  the  same  thing  not  to  see  the  light  above  us,  and  not  to  have  it 
in  us : for  the  having  it  here  is  only  the  reflex  and  the  consequence  of 
seeing  it  there.  (Cf.  1 John  ii.  8 — 11.) 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  Lord  receives  new  and  later  tidings 
from  the  house  of  sickness,  announcing  that  it  is  now  the  house  of  death, 
and  by  this  supposition  to  explain  the  new  communication  which  he 
makes  to  his  disciples.  But  by  the  inner  power  of  his  Spirit  he  knows 
how  it  has  fared  with  his  friend ; “ Lazarus  is  dead”  or,  as  Christ  first 
expresses  it,  speaking  in  the  heavenly  tongue,  “ sleepeth  ;”  u but  I go” 
he  adds,  “ that  I may  awake  him  out  of  sleep.”  Thus  simply  does  he 
speak  of  the  mighty  work  which  he  is  about  to  accomplish ; so  does  he 
use  concerning  it  a language  which  shall  rather  extenuate  than  exalt 
his  greatness  : it  is  but  as  a sleep  and  an  awakening.  The  disciples,  how- 
ever, misunderstood  his  words,  and  thought  that  he  spake  of  natural 
sleep,  an  indication  often  of  a favorable  crisis  in  a disorder,  and  which 
they  assume  to  be  such  here : “ Lord , if  he  sleep,  he  shall  do  well.”* 
What  need  then,  they  would  imply,  that  their  beloved  Lord  should  ex 
pose  himself  and  them  to  peril,  when  his  presence  was  not  required, 
when  all  was  going  favorably  forward  without  him  '?  Hereupon  the 
Lord  explained  to  them  that  he  spake  of  another  sleep,  even  the  sleep  of 
death,  from  which  he  was  going  to  awaken  Lazarus.  The  image  of  death 
as  a sleep  is  so  common,  belongs  so  to  the  natural  symbolism,  of  all 
nations,  that  it  was  no  difficulty  in  the  image  itself  which  occasioned  the 
misunderstanding  upon  their  part ; but  while  it  was  equally  possible  for 
them  to  take  his  words  in  a figurative  or  in  a literal  sense,  they  erro- 
neously took  them  in  the  latter.f  They  make  an  exactly  similar  mis- 

* So  Chrysostom,  and  Gfrotius : Discipuli  omnimodd  quserunt  Dominum  ab  isto 
itinere  avocare.  Ideo  omnibus  utuntur  arguments. 

f The  use  of  the  term  Koiyacdai  in  this  sense  is  abundantly  frequent  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  not  less  in  the  New,  as  Matt,  xxvii.  52;  Acts  vii.  60;  xiii.  36  ; 1 Cor. 
yii.  39 ; xi.  30  ; xv.  6,  18,  20,  51 ; 1 Thess.  iv.  13,  14,  15  ; 2 Pet.  iii.  4.  So  we  have 
Koiygdig  for  the  sleep  of  death,  Sirac.  xlvi.  19.  There  is  but  one  example  of  a use  of 
e|w7 rvifyiv,  similar  to  the  present,  namely,  in  the  remarkable  passage,  Job  xiv.  12: 
rAvdpuTTog  <5e  KOiggdeig  ov  yrjv  dvaor-g  eugdv  6 ovpavogov  grj  ovftfiatyrj,  Kal  ovk  e^vhv lo- 
dge ovrai  $!;  v7tvov  avr&v.  The  nearest  motive  to  this  image  may  probably  have  been 
the  likeness  of  a dead  body  to  one  sleeping.  Yet  there  may  well  lie  in  it  a deeper 
thought,  of  the  state  of  the  dead  being  that  of  a sleep — not  indeed  a dreamless 
sleep  ; but  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body  as  the  appointed  and  indeed 


818 


THE  EAISING  OF  LAZAEUS. 


take,  though  one  involving  a greater  lack  of  spiritual  insight,  Matt.  xvi. 
5 — 12.  “ Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly , Lazarus  is  dead  antici- 

pating at  the  same  time  a difficulty  which  might  have  risen  up  in  their 
minds,  namely,  why  he  was  not  there  to  save  him.  Through  his  ab- 
sence there  should  be  a higher  revelation  of  the  glory  of  God  than 
could  have  been  from  his  earlier  presence ; one  that  should  lead  them, 
and  in  them  all  the  Church,  to  higher  stages  of  faith,  to  a deeper  recog- 
nition of  himself,  as  the  Lord  of  life  and  of  death : “ I am  glad  for  your 
sakes  that  I was  not  there , to  the  intent  that  you  may  believe .”  He  is 
glad  that  he  was  not  there,  for  had  he  been  upon  the  spot  he  could  not 
have  suffered  the  distress  of  those  that  were  so  dear  to  him  to  reach  the 
highest  point,  but  must  have  interfered  at  an  earlier  moment. 

When  he  proposes  to  go  to  him  now,  it  is  plain  that  in  the  mind  of 
one  of  the  disciples  at  least  the  anticipation  of  death,  as  the  certain  con- 
sequence of  going,  is  not  overcome.  In  the  words  of  Thomas  to  his 
fellow-disciples,*  when  he  finds  the  perilous  journey  determined  on, 
“Let  us  also  go , that  we  may  die  with  him”  there  is  a remarkable  mix- 
ture of  faith  and  unfaithfulness,— faith,  since  he  counted  it  better  to  die 
with  his  Lord,  than  to  live  forsaking  him, — unfaithfulness,  since  he  con- 
ceived it  possible  that  so  long  as  his  Lord  had  a work  to  accomplish, 
he  or  those  in  his  company  could  be  overtaken  by  any  peril  which 
should  require  them  to  die  together.  Thomas  was,  most  probably,  of  a 
melancholic,  desponding  character ; most  true  to  his  Master,  yet  ever  in- 
clined to  look  at  things  on  their  darkest  side,  finding  it  most  hard  to  raise 
himself  to  the  standing  point  of  faith, — to  believe  other  and  more  than 
what  he  saw,  (John  xiv.  5 ; xx.  25,) — to  anticipate  higher  and  more 
favorable  issues  than  those  which  the  earthly  probabilities  of  an  event 
promised. f Men  of  all  temperaments  and  all  characters  were  within 
that  first  and  nearest  circle  of  disciples,  that  they  might  be  the  repre- 
necessary organ  of  its  activity,  may  and  must  bring  about,  not  a suspension,  but  a 
depression,  of  the  consciousness.  Wherefore  the  state  of  the  soul  apart  from  the 
body  is  never  considered  in  the  Scripture  as  itself  desirable,  nor  as  other  than  a state 
of  transition,  the  Scripture  acknowledging  no  true  immortality  apart  from  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body.  (See  Olshausen,  in  loc.) 

* Ivygadyrrig  is  used  but  this  once  in  the  New  Testament.  Grotius  makes  gey* 
avrov,  with  Lazarus  ; but  dirodavugev  yer’  avrov,  as  Maldonatus  well  brings  out,  indi- 
cates fellowship  not  merely  in  death,  but  in  dying , which  was  impossible  in  the  case  of 
Lazarus,  who  was  already  dead.  I know  no  other  interpreter  who  shares  this  view. 

f Maldonatus : Theodor.  Mopsuest.  Chrys.  et  Euthymius  recte  fortasse  indicant 
h£ec  verba,  quamvis  magnam  audacise  speciem  prae  se  ferant,  non  audacis  sed  timidi 
esse  hominis,  amantis  tamen  Christum,  a quo  eum  certum  mortis,  ut  putabat,  pericu- 
ium  avellere  non  posset.  Bengel : Erat  quasi  medius  inter  hanc  vitam  et  mortem, 
sine  tristitia  et  sine  laetitia  paratus  ad  moriendum ; ncn  tamen  sine  fide. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


319 


sentatives  and  helpers  of  all  that  hereafter,  through  one  difficulty  and 
another,  should  attain  at  last  to  the  full  assurance  of  faith.  Very  beau- 
tifully Chrysostom* * * §  says  of  this  disciple,  that  he  who  now  would  hardly 
venture  to  go  with  Jesus  as  far  as  to  the  neighboring  Bethany,  after- 
wards without  him  travelled  to  the  ends  of  the  world,  to  the  farthest 
India,  daring  all  the  perils  of  remote  and  hostile  nations. 

Martha  and  Mary  had  not,  probably,  ventured  to  send  to  the  Lord 
for  help,  till  the  sickness  of  their  brother  had  assumed  a most  alarming 
character,  and  he  had  most  likely  died  upon  the  same  day  that  the  mes- 
senger announcing  his  illness  had  reached  the  Lord,  else  he  would 
scarcely  have  been  four  days  in  his  grave  when  Jesus  came.  The  day 
of  the  messenger’s  arrival  on  this  calculation  would  be  one  day ; two 
our  Lord  abode  in  Persea  after  he  had  dismissed  him,  and  one  more  he 
would  have  consumed  in  the  journey  from  thence  to  Bethany ; — Tor  it 
was  not  more  than  the  journey  of  a single  day  from  the  one  place  to  the 
other.  Dying  upon  that  day,  he  had,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
Jews,  which  made  the  burial  immediately  to  follow  on  the  death,  been 
buried  upon  the  same  day,  as  a comparison  of  this  verse  with  ver.  39 
clearly  shows. f (Cf.  Acts  v.  6 — 10.) 

But  before  the  arrival  of  him,  the  true  Comforter,  other  comforters, 
some  formal,  all  weak,  had  arrived.!  It  was  part  of  the  Jewish  cere- 
monial of  grief,  which  was  all  most  accurately  defined, § that  there 
should  be  numerous  visits  of  condolence,  a great  gathering  of  friends 
and  acquaintance,  not  less  than  ten,  as  in  the  case  of  a marriage  com- 

* In  Joh.,  Horn.  62. 

f This  was  speedier  than  with  the  Greeks,  among  whom  a speedy  burial  was 
counted  as  an  honor  done  to  the  dead  (see  Becker’s  Ckarikles,  v.  2,  pp.  178,  179  ;) 
yet  it  did  not  take  place  generally  till  the  second  or  third  day  after  death.  (See  the 
Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Antt.,  s.  v.  Funus.) 

f St.  John’s  mention  of  the  nearness  of  Bethany  to  Jerusalem,  (not  above  two  of 
our  miles,)  is  to  account  for  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the  Jews  from  thence  should 
have  been  assembled  round  Martha  and  Mary.  'At  rrepl  M dpdav  /cat  M aptav,  to  signify 
Martha  and  Mary  themselves  and  no  other,  is  a Grecism  of  the  finer  sort,  which  is 
familiar  to  all.  Olshausen,  not  denying  this,  is  yet  inclined  to  think  that  here  the 
phrase  may  indicate  that  before  the  mourners  from  the  comparatively  more  distant 
Jerusalem  had  arrived,  there  had  already  assembled  some  such,  of  their  own  sex, 
probably  of  their  own  kin,  from  Bethany  itself,  to  whom  the  later  coming  joined 
themselves.  Tholuck  and  Liicke  take  the  same  view  of  the  phrase.  Cf.  Acts  xiii. 
13 : Oi  irepl  tov  TLavhov,  “ Paul  and  his  company.” 

§ Thus  the  days  of  mourning  were  to  be  thirty,  of  these  the  three  first  were  days 
of  weeping  (fletus) ; the  seven  next  days  of  lamentation  (planctus) ; and  the  remainder 
till  the  thirtieth,  more  generally  of  mourning  (moeror). 


320 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


pany,  round  those  that  were  mourning  for  their  dead  ; (1  Chron.  vii, 
22 ;)  sometimes,  and  on  the  part  of  some,  a reality,  yet  oftentimes  also 
for  the  mourners  a most  weary  and  burdensome  form.*  Job’s  comfort- 
ers give  witness  how  little  sympathy  there  sometimes  existed  with  the 
sufferers.  At  times,  too,  it  was  a bitter  mockery,  when  the  authors  of 
the  grief  professed  to  be  the  comforters  in  it.  (Gen.  xxxvii.  35.)  But  now 
he  comes,  who  could  indeed  comfort  the  mourners,  and  wipe  away  tears 
from  the  eyes.  Yet  he  comes  not  to  the  house ; that  had  been  already 
occupied  by  those  who  were  for  the  most  part  alien,  if  not  hostile,  to 
him  : and  not  amid  the  disturbing  influences  of  that  uncongenial  circle, 
would  he  have  his  first  interview  with  the  sorrowing  sisters  find  place. 
Probably  he  tarried  outside  the  town,  and  not  very  far  from  the  spot 
where  Lazarus  was  buried,  as  indeed  seems  implied  by  the  supposition 
of  the  Jews,  that  when  Mary  went  to  meet  him,  she  had  gone  to  the 
grave,  (ver.  31.)  Abiding  there,  he  may  have  suffered  the  tidings  to 
go  before  him  that  he  was  near  at  hand. 

When  it  is  said,  that  Martha,  hearing  of  his  approach,  44  went  and  met 
him , hut  Mary  sat  still  in  the  house”  we  are  not  in  this  hastening  of  the 
one,  and  tarrying  of  the  Other,  to  trace,  as  many  have  done,f  the  dif- 
ferent characteristics  of  the  two  sisters,  or  to  find  a parallel  here  with 
Luke  x.  39.  For  when  Mary  on  that  former  occasion  chose  to  sit  still, 
it  was  because  it  was  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  that  she  was  sitting;  this 
nearness  to  him,  and  not  the  sitting  still,  was  then  the  attraction.  The 
same  motives  which  kept  her,  on  that  other  occasion,  in  stillness  there, 
would  now  have  brought  her  with  the  swift  impulses  of  love  to  the  place 
where  Jesus  was.  And  moreover,  no  sooner  did  Mary  hear  that  her 
Lord  was  come  than  44 she  arose  quickly  and  came  unto  him”  (ver.  29,) 
for  it  is  evident  that  Martha’s  words,  44  The  Master  is  come , and  calletli 
for  theef  (ver.  28,)  are  the  first  intimation  which  Mary  receives  of  the 
arrival  of  their  heavenly  friend.  So  Chrysostom,  who  says  44  It  was 
not  that  Martha  was  now  more  zealous,  but  Mary  had  not  heard.” 
This  much  characteristic  of  the  two  sisters  there  may  very  probably 
be  in  the  narrative,  namely,  that  Martha,  engaged  in  active  employment 
even  in  the  midst  of  her  grief,  may  have  been  more  in  the  way  of 
hearing  what  was  happening  in  the  outer  world,  while  Mary,  in  her 
deeper  and  stiller  anguish,  was  sitting  retired  in  the  house,  and  less 
within  the  reach  of  such  rumors.]; 

* See  Lightfoot,  (in  loc.)  for  tlie  manner  in  which  it  had  hardened  into  a dry 
and  heartless  formality. 

f As  Bengel,  who  here  for  once  seems  at  fault,  accounting  for  Mary’s  sitting 
still  thus : Erat  animo  sedatiore.  So  also  Tholuck. 

£ Maldonatus  thinks  that  it  is  with  this  very  purpose  that  her  sitting  still  is 


THE  RAISING  OE  LAZARUS. 


321 


I know  not  whether  it  is  an  accident  of  the  narration  which  is  fuller 
at  one  place  than  at  the  other,  or  whether  it  belongs  to  the  characteristic 
touches  which  escape  us  at  the  first  glance,  but  of  which  Scripture  is 
so  full,  that  nothing  should  be  said  of  Martha’s  falling  at  the  • Lord’s 
feet,  while  this  is  noted  of  her  sister,  (ver.  32.)  Martha  too  is  ready 
to  change  words  with  Christ,  but  the  deeper  anguish  of  Mary  finds  ut- 
terance in  that  one  phrase,  the  one  thought  which  was  uppermost  in  the 
heart  of  either:  “Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here , my  brother  had  not 
died;”  and  then  she  is  silent.  For  it  is  the  bitterest  drop  in  their  whole 
cup  of  anguish,  that  all  this  might  have  been  otherwise  : had  this  sick- 
ness befallen  at  another  moment,  when  Christ  was  nearer,  had  he  been 
able  to  hasten  to  their  aid  so  soon  as  he  was  summoned,  all  might  have 
been  averted,  they  might  have  been  rejoicing  in  a living,  instead  of 
mourning  over  a dead,  brother.  Yet  even  now  Martha  had  not  alto- 
gether renounced  every  hope,  though  she  ventures  only  at  a distance  to 
allude  to  this  hope  which  she  is  cherishing  still.  “ But  I know  that  even 
now,”  now,  when  the  grave  was  closed  upon  him,  “ whatsoever  thou  wilt 
ask  of  God,  God  will  give  it  thee.”  High  thoughts  and  poor  thoughts  of 
Christ  mingle  here  together ; — high  thoughts,  in  that  she  sees  him  as 
one  whose  effectual  fervent  prayers  will  greatly  prevail — poor  thoughts, 
in  that  she  thinks  of  him  as  obtaining  by  prayer  what  indeed  he  has  by 
the  oneness  of  his  nature  with  God.* 

With  words  which  yet  are  purposely  ambiguous,  being  meant  for 
the  trying  of  her  faith,  Jesus  assures  her  that  the  deep,  though  unut- 
tered  longing  of  her  heart  shall  indeed  be  granted, — “ Thy  brother  shall 
rise  again”  But  though  her  heart  could  take  in  the  desire  for  so  great 
a boon,  it  cannot  take  in  its  actual  granting ; it  shrinks  back  half  in 
unbelief  from  the  receiving  it.f  She  cannot  believe  that  these  words 
mean  more  than  that  he,  with  all  other  faithful  Israelites,  will  stand  in 
his  lot  at  the  last  day ; and  with  a slight  movement  of  impatience  at 


mentioned  ver.  20,  as  an  explanation  of  her  not  having  been  in  the  way  of  hearing, 
and  so  not  having  heard,  of  our  Lord’s  arrival,  and  therefore  not  hastening  with  her 
sister  to  meet  him.  He  says : Quia  enim  dixerat  Martham  obviam  Christo  processisse, 
ne  quis  miraretur,  aut  Mariam  accusaret  quod  non  et  ipsa  processisset,  excusat  earn 
tacite,  dicens  sedisse  domi,  ideoque  nihil  de  Christi  adventu  cognovisse.  Martha 
enim  cognovit,  quia  credibile  est  domo  aliqua  causa  fuisse  progressam,  et  solent  qui 
foris  in  publico  versantur,  multos  colligere  rumor es,  quos  ignorant, qui  domi  delitescunt. 

* Grotius  : Et  hie  infirmitas  apparet.  Putat  ilium  gratiosum  esse  apud  Deum, 
non  autem  in  illo  esse  plenitudinem  Divinze  potestatis. 

f How  remarkable  an  instance  of  the  like  we  have,  Acts  xii.  The  Church  could, 
pray  for  Peter’s  deliverance  (v.  5) ; but  could  not  believe  its  prayer  heard  and  him. 
delivered  (ver.  15). 


VL 


322 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


such  cold  comfort,  comfort  that  so  little  met  the  present  longings  of 
her  heart,  which  were  to  have  her  brother  now,  she  answers,  “ I know 
that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day”  In  all  this 
there  was  much  of  carnal ; hers  was  as  yet  an  earthly  love,  clinging  pas- 
sionately to  the  earthly  objects  of  its  affection,  and  needing  infinitely 
to  be  exalted  and  purified.  Unless  the  Lord  had  lifted  her  into  a higher 
region  of  life,  it  would  have  profited  her  little  that  he  had  granted  her 
heart’s  desire.*  What  would  it  have  helped  her  to  receive  back  her 
brother,  if  again  she  were  presently  to  lose  him,  if  once  more  they  were 
to  be  parted  asunder  by  his  death  or  her  own?  This  lower  boon  would 
only  prove  a boon  at  all,  if  he  and  she  were  both  made  partakers  of  a 
higher  life  in  Christ ; then  indeed  death  wrould  have  no  more  power 
over  them,  then  they  would  truly  possess  one  another,  and  for  ever : 
and  to  this  the  wrondrously  deep  and  loving  words  of  Christ  would  lead 
her.  They  are  no  unseasonable  preaching  of  truths  remote  from  her 
present  needs,  but  the  answer  to  the  very  deepest  need  of  her  soul ; they 
would  lead  her  from  a lost  brother  to  a present  Saviour,  a Saviour  in 
whom  alone  that  brother  could  be  truly  and  for  ever  found.  “ I am  the 
Resurrection  and  the  Life ; the  true  Life,  the  true  Resurrection ; the 
everlasting  triumphs  over  death,  they  are  in  me — no  distant  things,  as 
thou  spakest  of  now,  to  find  place  at  the  end  of  the  world ; no  things 
separate  or  separable  from  me,  as  thou  spakest  of  lately,  when  thou  de- 
siredst  that  I should  ask  of  another  that  which  I possess  evermore  in 
myself.  In  me  is  victory  over  the  grave,  in  me  is  life  eternal : by 
faith  in  me  that  becomes  yours  which  makes  death  not  to  be  death,  but 
only  the  transition  to  a higher  life.” 

Such,  I cannot  doubt,  is  the  general  meaning  and  scope  of  these  glo- 
rious words,  which  yet  claim  to  be  considered  somewhat  more  nearly  and 
in  detail.  When  we  ask  ourselves  wdiat  Christ  means  by  the  title,  “ The 
Resurrection ,”  which  he  attributes  to  himself,  we  perceive  that  in  one  as- 
pect it  is  something  more,  in  another  something  less,  than  that  other  title 
of  “ The  Life”  which  he  claims.  It  is  more,  for  it  is  life  in  conflict  with 
and  overcoming  death ; it  is  life  being  the  death  of  death,  meeting  it  in 
its  highest  manifestation,  of  physical  dissolution  and  decay,  and  vanquish- 
ing it  there.  It  is  less,  for  so  long  as  that  title  belongs  to  him,  it  implies 
something  still  undone,  a mortality  not  yet  wholly  swallowed  up  in  life, 
a last  enemy  not  yet  wholly  destroyed,  and  put  under  his  feet.  (1  Cor. 

* This  is  the  great  thought  of  Wordsworth’s  Laodamia.  She  who  giVes  her 
name  to  that  sublime  poem,  does,  not  lift  herself,  she  has  none  to  lift  her,  into  those 
higher  regions  in  which  the  return  of  the  beloved  would  be  a blessing  and  a boon ; 
and  thus  it  proves  to  her  a joyless,  disappointing  gift,  presently  again  to  be  snatched 

away. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


323 


xv.  25,  26.)  As  he  is  “ the  Resurrection ” of  the  dead,  so  is  he  “ the 
Life ” of  the  living — absolute  life,  having  life  in  himself,  for  so  it  has 
been  given  him  of  the  Father,  (John  v.  26,)  the  one  fountain  of  life,* 
so  that  all  who  receive  not  life  from  him  pass  into  the  state  of  death, 
first  the  death  of  the  spirit,  and  then,  as  the  completion  of  their  death 
the  death  also  of  the  body. 

The  words  following,  “ He  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead, 
yet  shall  he  live  ; and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
dUf  are  not  obscure  as  far  as  the  gathering  the  sum  total  of  their 
meaning : yet  so  to  interpret  them,  as  to  prevent  the  two  clauses  of  the 
sentence  from  seeming  to  contain  a repetition,  and  to  find  progress  in 
them,  is  not  easy.  If  we  compare  this  passage  with  John  vi.  32 — 59, 
and  observe  the  repeated  stress  which  is  there  laid  on  the  raising  up  at 
the  last  day,  as  the  great  quickening  work  of  the  Son  of  God,  (ver.  39, 
40,  44,  54,)  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  make  the  declaration  “ yet  shall  he 
live,”  in  the  first  clause  here,  to  be  equivalent  to  the  words,  “ I will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day,”  there,  and  this  whole  first  clause  will  then  be 
the  unfolding  of  the  words,  11 1 am  the  Resurrection as  such  I will 
rescue  every  one  that  believeth  on  me  from  death  and  the  grave.  In 
like  manner,  the  second  clause  answers  to,  and  is  the  expansion  of,  the 
more  general  declaration,  u I am  the  Life ” — that  is,  “ Whosoever  liv- 
eth, every  one  that  draweth  the  breath  of  life  and  believeth  upon  me, 
shall  know  the  power  of  an  everlasting  life,  shall  never  truly  die.” 
Here,  as  so  often  in  our  Lord’s  words,  the  temporal  death  is  taken  no 
account  of,  but  quite  overlooked,  and  the  believer  in  him  is  contempla- 
ted as  already  lifted  above  death,  and  made  partaker  of  everlasting  life. 
(John  vi.  47.) 

Having  claimed  all  this  for  himself,  he  demands  of  Martha  whether 
she  can  receive  it : “ Believest  thou  this, — that  it  is  I who  am  this  Lord 
of  life  and  death  1 Does  thy  faith  in  the  divine  verities  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  eternal  life  after  death  centre  in  me'?”  Her  answer,  “ Yea, 
Lord,  I believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should 
come  into  the  world,”  is  perhaps  more  direct  than  at  first  sight  it  appears. 
For  one  of  the  offices  of  Christ  the  Messiah  was,  according  to  the  Jewish 
expectations,  to  raise  the  dead ; and  thus,  confessing  him  to  be  the 
Christ,  she  implicitly  confessed  him  also  to  be  the  quickener  of  the 
dead.  Or  she  may  mean, — “I  believe  all  glorious  things  concerning 
thee ; there  is  nought  which  I do  not  believe  concerning  thee,  since  1 
believe  thee  to  be  him  in  whom  every  glorious  gift  for  the  world  is  cen- 

* 'O  £civ  (Rev.  i.  8);  6 ^uottoiuv  (Rom.  iv.  II);  rj  £ar}  rjfi&v  (Col.  iii.  4);  Tr^yj) 
(Ps.  xxxv.  9). 


324 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


tred,” — speaking  like  one  whose  faith,  as  that  of  most  persons  at  all 
times  must  be,  was  implicit  rather  than  explicit : she  did  not  know  all 
which  that  name  involved,  but  all  which  it  did  involve  she  was  ready  to 
believe. 

She  says  no  more  ; for  now  she  will  make  her  sister  partaker  of  the 
joyful  tidings  that  he,  the  long-desired,  is  come  at  last.  Some  good 
thing  too,  it  may  be,  she  expects  from  his  high  and  mysterious  words, 
though  she  knows  not  precisely  what : a my  of  comfort  has  found  its 
way  into  her  heart,  and  she  would  fain  make  her  sister  a sharer  in  this. 
Yet  she  told  her  tidings  “secretly fearing,  it  may  be,  that  some  of 
their  visitors  from  J erusalem  might  be  of  unfriendly  disposition  towards 
the  Lord ; nor  was  her  suspicion  unfounded,  as  the  event  showed,  (ver. 
46.)  She  says  to  Mary  apart,  “ The  Master  is  come , and  calleth  for 
thee.”  This,  that  he  had  asked  for  Mary,  we  had  not  learned  from  the 
previous  account.  At  once  she  rises,  and  they  that  are  round  about  her 
take  it  for  granted  that  she  is  hastening  in  a paroxysm  of  her  grief  to 
the  tomb,  that  she  may  weep  there ; — as  it  was  the  custom  of  J ewish 
women  often  to  visit  the  graves  of  their  kindred,*  and  this  especially 
during  the  first  days  of  their  mourning ; — and  they  follow  ; for  thus  it 
was  ordained  of  God  that  this  miracle  should  have  many  witnesses. 
Mary  falls  at  the  feet  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  greeting  him  exactly  in  the 
same  words  as  her  sister,  “ Lord , if  thou  hadst  been  here , my  brother  had 
not  died.”  The  words  thus  repeating  themselves  a second  time  from 
her  lips,  give  us  a glimpse  of  all  that  had  passed  in  that  mournfnl 
house,  since  the  beloved  was  laid  in  earth — how  often  during  that  four 
days’  interval  the  sisters  had  said  one  to  the  other,  how  different  the 
issues  might  have  been,  if  the  divine  friend  had  been  with  them.  This 
had  been  the  one  thought  in  the  hearts,  the  one  word  upon  the  lips,  of 
either,  and  therefore  was  so  naturally  the  first  spoken  by  each,  and  that 
altogether  independently  of  the  other.  This  is  indeed  one  of  the  finer 
traits  of  the  narrative. 

At  the  spectacle  of  all  this  grief,  the  sisters  weeping,  and  even  the 
more  indifferent  visitors  from  J erusalem  weeping  likewise,  the  Lord  also 
“ groaned  in  spirit  and  was  troubled.”]  The  word  which  we  trans- 

* Rosenmueller’s  Alte  und  New  Morgenland,  v.  4,  p.  281.  Geier,  Be  Luctu 
Hebrceorvm , c.  7,  § 26. 

] An  emphasis  has  sometimes  been  laid  on  the  krapa^ev  kavrov , turbavit  seipsum. 
Thus  by  Augustine  {In.  Ev.  Joh.y  Tract.  49) : Quis  enim  eum  posset  nisi  se  ipse  tur- 
bare  ? (Cf.  Be  Civ.  Bei,  1.  14,  c.  9,  § 3.)  And  by  Bengel:  Affectus  Jesu  non  fuere 
passiones,  sed  voluntarise  eommotiones,  quas  plan£  in  sua  potestate  habebat ; et  hsec 
turbatio  fuit  plena  ordinis  et  rationis  summse.  It  would  then  express  something  of  the 
pETpioirddeia  of  the  Schools,  as  opposed  on  the  one  side  to  frantic  outbreaks  of  grief,  on 


THE  RAISING-  OF  LAZARUS. 


325 


late  “ groaned”*  does  indeed  far  more  express  the  feelings  of  indignation 
and  displeasure  than  of  grief,  which,  save  as  a measure  of  that  is  con- 
tained in  all  displeasure,  it  means  not  at  all.  But  at  what  and  with 
whom  Jesus  was  thus  indignant,  has  been  very  differently  explained. 
The  notion  of  some  of  the  Greek  expositors,!  that  he  was  indignant 
with  himself  at  these  risings  of  pity,  these  human  tears, — that  the  word 
expresses  the  inward  struggle  to  repress,  as  something  weak  and  un- 
worthy, these  rising  utterances  of  grief,  is  not  to  be  accepted  for  an 
instant.  Christianity  knows  of  no  such  dead  Stoicism ; it  knows  of  a 
regulating,  but  of  no  such  repressing,  of  the  natural  affections ; on  the 
contrary,  it  bids  us  to  weep  with  them  that  weep ; and,  in  the  beautiful 
words  of  Leighton,  that  we  “ seek  not  altogether  to  dry  the  stream  of 
sorrow,  but  to  bound  it,  and  keep  it  within  its  banks.”  Some,  as 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Lampe,  suppose  that  he  was  indignant  in 
spirit  at  the  hostile  dispositions  which  he  already  traced  and  detected 
among  the  Jews  that  were  present,  the  unbelief  on  their  part  with 
which  he  foresaw  that  great  work  of  his  would  be  received.  Others, 

the  other  to  the  dirad  eta  of  the  Stoics.  Yet  while  this  is  most  true,  it  does  not  lie  in 
this  active  frdpatjev  tavrbv,  which  is  accidental : since  elsewhere,  on  similar  occasions, 
we  have  the  passive  hapdxdrj  rep  Trvevgari.  (John  xiii.  21.)  Of.  xii.  27,  with  which 
this  is  in  fact  identical. 

* ’E pPpigdoficu  (from  (3pcfJ.il,  B pcp.6  a name  of  Persephone  or  Hecate,  and  signify- 
ing The  Angered,  cognate  with  fremo,  (3pl6og,  typegdui)  does  not  mean  to  be  moved 
with  any  strong  passion,  as  grief,  or  fear,  but  always  implies  something  of  anger  and 
indignation.  See  Passow,  s.  v.  who  knows  no  other  signification ; and  in  like  manner 
all  the  Greek  interpreters  upon  this  passage,  however  they  might  differ  concerning 
the  cause  of  the  indignation,  yet  found  indignation  here  expressed.  So  Luther  : Er 
ergrimmete  im  Geiste.  Storr  then  has  right  when  he  says  ( Opusc . Acad.,  v.  3,  p. 
254):  Quern  vulgo  sumunt  tristitice  significatum,  is  plane  incertus  esse  videtur,  cum 
nullo,  quod  sciamus,  exemplo  confirmari  possit,  Grsecisque  patribus  tam  valde  ignotus 
fuerit,  ut  materiam  ad  succensendum,  quamvis  non  repertam  in  Marias  et  comitum 
ejus  ploratu,  quaererent  certe  in  humanae  naturae  (jt/q  oapnog)  Jesu  propensione  ad 
tristitiam,  quam  Jesus  ....  increpaverit.  (See  Suicer’s  Thess.,  s.  v.)  The  other  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  where  this  word  is  used  bear  out  this  meaning.  Twice 
it  is  used  of  our  Lord  commanding,  under  the  threat  of  his  earnest  displeasure,  those 
whom  he  had  healed  to  keep  silence,  (Matt.  ix.  30  ; Mark  i.  43,)  and  one  of  those  who 
were  indignant  at  what  Mary  had  done  in  the  matter  of  the  ointment  (teal  £ve(3pi/ia)VTO 
avry,  Mark  xiv.  5).  It  is  nothing  but  the  difficulty  of  finding  a satisfactory  object 
for  the  indignation  of  the  Lord,  which  has  caused  so  many  modern  commentators  to 
desert  this  explanation,  and  make  the  word  simply  and  merely  an  expression  of  grief 
and  anguish  of  spirit.  Lampe  and  Kuinoel  defend  the  right  explanation ; and  Lange 
( Theol . Stud,  und  Kritt.,  1836,  p.  '714,  seq.)  has  many  beautiful  remarks  in  an  essay 
wherein  he  seeks  to  unite  both  meanings. 

j-  See  Suioer’s  Thes.,  s.  v.  IgBpcpdoyat. 


326 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


that  his  indignation  was  excited  by  the  unbelief  of  Martha  and  Mary 
and  the  others,  which  they  manifested  in  their  weeping,  whereby  they 
showed  clearly  that  they  did  not  believe  that  he  would  raise  their  dead 
But  he  himself  wept  presently,  and  there  was  nothing  in  these  their  na 
tural  tears  to  haVe  roused  a feeling  of  the  kind. 

Much  better  is  it  to  take  this  as  the  indignation  which  the  Lord  of 
life  felt  at  all  which  sin  had  wrought : he  beheld  death  in  all  its  fearful- 
ness, as  the  wages  of  sin ; and  all  the  world’s  woes,  of  which  this  was  but 
a little  sample,  rose  up  before  his  eye, — all  the  mourners  and  all  the 
graves  were  present  to  him.  For  that  he  was  about  to  wipe  away  the 
tears  of  those  present,  did  not  truly  alter  the  case.  Lazarus  did  but  rise 
again,  to  taste  a second  time  the  bitterness  of  death : these  mourners  he 
might  comfort,  but  only  for  a little  while ; these  tears  he  might  stanch, 
only  again  hereafter  to  flow ; and  how  many  had  flowed  and  must  flow 
with  no  such  Comforter  to  wipe  them,  even  for  a season,  away ! Con- 
templating all  this,  a mighty  indignation  at  the  author  of  all  this  woe  pos- 
sessed his  heart.  And  now  he  will  delay  no  longer,  but  will  do  battle 
with  him,  and  show,  in  a present,  though  as  yet  an  incomplete,  triumph 
over  him,  some  preludes  of  his  future  victory.*  With  this  feeling  he 
demands,  “ Where  have  ye  laid  him  ? And  they  said  unto  him , Lord , come 
and  see.  Jesus  wept  :”f  himself  borne  along  with,  and  not  seeking  to  re- 
sist, this  great  tide  of  sorrow. 


* Apollinarius : '£2crrf  rtg  yew  aloe  dpiorevg  rove  7roXeyiovg  Iddv,  kavrbv  irapu>£vvt 
nard  tuv  dvriTtaXuV. 

f We  may  compare,  for  purposes  of  contrast,  the  words  of  Artemis  in  that  ma- 
jestic concluding  scene  in  the  Hippolytus  of  Euripides,  where,  in  the  midst  of  hist 
misery,  Hippolytus  asks, 

'Opag  ye,  deernotv’,  dg  tov  ddhiov  ; 

and  she  answers, 

'Opu,  Kaf  ooouv  S’  ov  Oeyig  (3alelv  ddupv. 

Full  as  is  that  scene  of  soothing  and  elevating  power,  and  even  of  a divine  sympathy, 
yet  a God  of  tears  was  a higher  conception  than  the  heathen  world  could  reach  to. 
After  indeed  the  Son  of  God  had  come,  and  in  that  strange  and  inexplicable  way  hao 
begun  to  modify  the  whole  feeling  of  the  heathen  world,  long  before  men  had  eve» 
heard  of  his  name,  the  Roman  poet  could  sing  in  words  exquisitely  beautiful  them- 
selves, and  belonging  to  a passage  among  the  noblest  which  antiquity  supplies : 

....  molissima  corda 
Humano  generi  dare  se  natura  fatetur, 

Quae  lacrymas  dedit : Ihbc  nostri  pars  optima  sensus. 

Jov.,  Sat.  15. 

On  the  sinlessness  of  these  natural  affections,  or  rather  on  their  necessity  for  a full 
humanity,  see  Augustine,  Be  Civ.  Dei,  1.  14,  c.  9,  § 3. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


327 


Some  of  the  Jews  present,  moved  to  good  will  by  this  lively  sym- 
pathy of  the  Lord  with  the  sorrows  of  those  around  him,  exclaimed, 
“ Behold  how  he  loved  him  ?”  But*  others,  perhaps  invidiously,  “ Could 
not  this  man , ivhich  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind , have  caused  that  even  this 
man  should  not  have  died?”  He  weeps  over  this  calamity  now,  but 
could  he  not  have  hindered  it  1 He  who  could  open  the  eyes  of  the 
blind,  (they  allude  to  the  case  which,  through  the  judicial  investigation 
that  followed,  had  made  so  great  a stir  at  Jerusalem,  John  ix.,)  could 
he  not  (by  his  prayer  to  God)  have  hindered  that  this  man  should  have 
died1?  There  was  indeed  in  this  accusation,  as  there  is  so  often  in 
similar  ones,  something  contradictory : for  their  very  assumption  that  he 
possessed  such  power  and  favor  with  God  that  he  could  have  stayed  the 
stroke  of  death,  rested  on  the  supposition  of  so  high  a goodness  upon  his 
part,  as  would  have  secured  that  his  power  should  not  have  been  grudg- 
ingly restrained  in  any  case,  where  it  would  have  been  suitably  exerted. 
It  is  characteristic  of  the  exact  truth  of  this  narrative,  (although  it  has 
been  brought  as  an  argument  against  it,)  that  they,  dwellers  in  Jerusa- 
lem, should  refer  to  this  miracle  which  had  lately  occurred  there,  (John 
ix.,)  rather  than  to  the  previous  raisings  from  the  dead,  which  might  at 
first  sight  appear  more  to  the  point.  But  those,  occurring  at  an  earlier 
period,  and  in  the  remote  Galilee,  would  not  have  been  present  to  them 
with  at  all  the  same  liveliness  as  was  this  miracle,  which  had  been 
brought  out  into  especial  prominence  by  the  contradiction  which  it  had 
roused,  and  the  futile  attempts  which  had  been  made  to  prove  it  an  im- 
posture. Yet  a maker  up  of  the  narrative  from  later  and  insecure  tradi- 
tions would  inevitably  have  fallen  upon  those  miracles  of  a like  kind,  as 
arguments  of  the  power  of  Jesus  to  have  accomplished  this. 

Meanwhile  they  reach  the  place  where  the  tomb  was,  though  not 
without  another  access  of  that  indignant  horror,  another  of  those  mighty 
shudderings  that  shook  the  frame  of  the  Lord  of  life, — so  dreadful  did 
death  seem  to  hin  who,  looking  through  all  its  natural  causes,  at  which 
we  often  stop  short,  saw  it  purely  as  the  seal  and  token  of  sin,  so  un- 
natural its  usurpation  over  a race  made  for  immortality.  The  tomb,  as 
the  whole  course  of  the  narrative  shows,  was  without  the  town,  (ver.  30,) 
and  this  according  to  the  universal  custom  of  the  East,  (Luke  vii.  12,) 
which  was  not  to  place  the  dead  among  the  living. f It  was  a cave. 


* 6L  We  translate  “ And  some;”  rather,  “ Bui  some.  In  the  Vulgate# 
Quidam  autem. 

f Rosenmueller’s  Alte  und  Neue  Morgenland,  v.  4,  p.  281.  In  like  manner  the 
Greeks  buried  for  the  most  part,  and  with  only  rare  exceptions,  without  the  walls  of 
their  cities.  (Becker’s  Charilcles , v.  2,  p.  188.) 


328 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


Such  were  commonly  the  family  vaults  of  the  Jews : sometimes  natural, 
(Gen.  xxiii.  9,)  sometimes  artificial,  and  hollowed  out  by  man’s  labor 
from  the  rock,  (Isai.  xxii.  16 ; Matt,  xxvii.  60,)  in  a garden,  (John  xix. 
41  ,)  or  in  some  field,  the  possession  of  the  family,  (Gen.  xxiii.  9, 
17 — 20  ; xxxv.  18  ; 2 Kin.  xxi.  18  ;)  with  recesses  in  the  sides, 
wherein  the  bodies  were  laid,  occasionally  with  chambers  one  beyond 
another.  Sometimes  the  entrance  to  these  tombs  was  on  a level,  some- 
times there  was  a descent  to  them  by  steps ; this  last  seems  most 
probable  on  the  present  occasion,  from  the  stone  being  said  to  lie  on 
the  tomb.  The  purpose  of  this  stone  was  mainly  to  prevent  the  en- 
trance of  beasts  of  prey,  and  especially  the  numerous  jackals,  which 
else  might  have  found  their  way  into  these  receptacles  of  the  dead, 
and  torn  the  bodies.  It  was  naturally  of  size  and  weight  enough  not 
easily  to  be  moved  away.  (Mark  xvi.  3.)  The  tomb  of  our  blessed 
Lord  himself,  with  its  “ door,”  seems  rather  to  have  had  a horizontal 
entrance.'55' 

Among  other  slighter  indications  which  we  have  that  Mary  and 
Martha  were  not  at  all  among  the  poorest  of  their  people,  this  is  one, 
that  they  should  possess  such  a family  vault  as  this.  The  poor  had  not, 
and  it  lay  not  within  their  power  to  purchase  in  fee,  portions  of  land  to 
set  apart  for  these  purposes  of  family  interment.  The  possession  of 
such  was  a privilege  of  the  wealthier  orders ; only  such  were  thus 
laid  in  the  sepulchres  of  their  fathers.f  We  have  another  indication  of 
this  in  the  largo  concourse  of  mourners,  and  those  of  the  higher  ranks, J 
which  assembled  from  Jerusalem  to  console  the  sisters  in  their  bereave- 
ment ; for  even  in  grief  that  word  is  too  often  true,  that  “ wealth 
maketh  many  friends ; but  the  poor  is  separated  from  his  neighbor.” 
(Prov.  xix.  4.)  So,  too,  in  the  pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard,  “ very 
costly ,”  with  which  Mary  anointed  the  feet  of  the  Saviour;  (John. xii. 
3;)  and  the  language  of  the  original  at  ver.  19,  however  it  may  mean 
Martha  and  Mary,  and  not  those  around  them,§  yet  means  them  as  the 
centre  of  an  assemblage.  This  was  the  general  view  of  the  early 

* See  Miner’s  Real  Wdrterbuch,  s.  v.  Graber. 

f Becker  (ChariJcles,  v.  2,  p.  190)  observes  the  same  of  the  yv^uara  among  the 
Greeks.  For  the  poorer  and  more  numerous  classes  there  were  common  burial-places, 
as  with  the  Romans  also.  (See  his  Gallus,  v.  2,  p.  293 ; and  the  Diet,  of  Gr.  and 
Rom.  Antt.,  s.  v.  Funus,  p.  436.) 

| St.  John  always  uses  ol  ’lovSaloc  (ver.  19),  as  a designation  for  the  chief  among 
the  Jews. 

§ Tug  mpl  Mdpdav  ical  M apiav.  Lampe : Nec  facile  occurret  phrasis  nisi  de  per- 
sonis  illustribus,  qui  amicorum  aut  ministrorum  grege  cincti  erant.  Colligi  ergo  ex 
2a  quoque  hie  potest  quod  Martha  et  Maria  lautioris  fortunse  fuerint. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


329 


Church  concerning  their  rank  in  life.  Chrysostom  assumes  the  sisters 
to  have  been  high-bom.*  Yet  though  this  was  most  probably  the  case, 
it  is  a mistaken  emphasis  which  some  lay  upon  “ the  town  of  Mary  and 
her  sister  Martha ,”  (ver.  1,)  when  they  conclude  from  thence  that 
Bethany  belonged  to  them.  The  Levitical  law  rendered,  and  was 
intended  to  render,  any  such  concentration  of  landed  property  in  the 
hands  of  only  one  or  two  persons  impossible.  As  regards  the  phrase 
itself,  by  as  good  right  Bethsaida  might  be  said  to  have  belonged  to 
Andrew  and  Peter,  for  the  language  is  exactly  similar.  (John  i.  45.) 

What  is  it  that  causes  St.  John  to  designate  Martha  (ver.  39)  as  “ the 
sister  of  him  that  was  deadf  when  this  is  plain  from  the  whole  preced- 
ing narrative  % Probably  to  explain  her  remonstrance  at  the  taking 
away  of  the  stone.  She,  as  a sister  of  the  dead,  would  naturally  be 
more  shocked  than  another  at  the  thought  of  the  ^xpcsure  of  that  coun- 
tenance, upon  which  corruption  had  already  set  its  seal ; — would  most 
shudderingly  contemplate  that  beloved  form  made  a spectacle  to  stran- 
gers, now  when  it  was  become  an  abhorring  even  to  them  that  had 
loved  it  best.  Yet  the  words  of.  her  remonstrance  are  scarcely,  as  by  so 
many  they  are  interpreted,  an  experience  which  she  now  makes,  but 
rather  a conclusion  which  she  draws  from  the  length  of  time  during 
which  the  body  had  already  lain  in  the  grave.  With  the  rapid  decom- 
position that  goes  forward  in  a hot  country,  necessitating  as  it  does  an 
almost  immediate  burial,  the  four  days  might  well  have  brought  this 
about,  which  she  fears.  At  the  same  time,  it  gives  the  miracle  almost 
a monstrous  character  to  suppose  it  was  actually  the  re-animating  of  a 
body  which  had  already  undergone  the  process  of  corruption.  Eather 
he  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  who  had  intended  that  La- 
zarus should  live  again,  had  watched  over  that  body  in  his  providence, 
that  it  should  not  hasten  to  corruption.  If  the  poet  could  imagine  a 
divine  power  guarding  from  all  defeature  and  wrong  the,  body  which 
was  thus  preserved  only  for  an  honorable  burial  by  how  much  more 
may  we  assume  a like  preservation  for  that  body  which,  not  in  the  world 
of  fiction,  but  of  reality,  w?is  to  become  again  so  soon  the  tabernacle  for 
the  soul  of  one  of  Christ’s  servants.  Neither  is  there  any  thing  in  Mar- 
tha’s words  to  render  any  other  view  necessary ; no  conclusion  of  an 
opposite  kind  can  be  drawn  from  them ; for  they  are  plainly  spoken  be- 
fore the  stone  is  moved  away  from  the  opening  of  the  tomb.J 

* 'RvyevEGTEpai. 

f Iliad,  xxiv.  18 — 21. 

f It  is  singular  how  generally  the  words  rjSrj  ofri  have  been  taken  in  proof  of  that 
whereof  they  are  only  a conjecture,  and  as  I am  persuaded,  an  erroneous  one.  Indeed 

42 


330 


THE  EAISIlSra  OF  LAZAEUS. 


Yet  this  much  is  certain  from  the  words,  that  she  had  already  let  go 
the  faith  which  at  one  moment  she  had  conceived,  that  even  yet  her 
brother  might  live  again.  Nor  is  this  strange,  for  such  are  ever  the  al- 
ternating ebbs  and  flows  of  faith.  All  that  she  could  see  in  the  com 
mand  to  remove  the  stone,  was  probably  a desire  on  the  Lord’s  part  to 
look  once  more  on  the  countenance  of  him  whom  he  loved ; and  from 
this  she  would  turn  him,  by  urging  how  death  and  corruption  would  have 
already  set  their  seal  upon  that : so  it  must  needs  be,  “ for  he  hath  been 
dead  four  days.” 

The  Lord  checks  and  rebukes  her  unbelief : “ Said  I not  unto  thee , 
that,  if  thou  wouldest  believe,  thou  shouldest  see  the  glory  of  God?”  When 
had  he  said  this,  and  to  what  former  conversation  does  he  allude  ? No 
doubt  to  that  which  he  held  with  her  when  first  they  met.  It  is  true 
that  these  very  words  do  not  occur  there,  but  that  conversation  was  on 
the  power  of  faith,  as  the  means  to  make  our  own  the  fulness  of  the 
powers  that  dwelt  in  Christ.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  he  alludes  to  something  in  that  prior  discourse,  unrecorded  by  the 
Evangelist.  And  now  Martha  acquiesces : she  does  believe,  and  no 
longer  opposes  the  obstacles  of  her  unbelief  to  what  the  Lord  would  do. 
And  now,  when  they  who  are  the  nearest  of  kin  are  thus  consenting, 
the  stone  is  removed ; and  on  this  follows  the  thanksgiving  prayer  of  the 
Lord;  “ And  Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  said , Father,  I thanlc  thee  that 
thou  hast  heard  me.”  Yet  in  any  thanksgiving  to  God,  and  thanksgiv 
ing  on  acccount  of  being  heard,  there  lay  the  possibility  of  a misinter 
pretation  on  the  part  of  his  disciples,  and  of  the  Church  afterwards, 
when  these  words  were  handed  down  to  it, — as  though  it  would  have 
been  possible  for  the  Father  not  to  have  heard  him, — as  though  he  had  first 
obtained  this  power  to  call  Lazarus  from  his  grave,  after  supplication — 
had,  like  Elisha,  by  dint  of  prayer,  painfully  won  back  the  life  which 
had  departed  ; whereas  the  power  was  most  truly  his  own,  not  indeed  in 
disconnection  from  the  Father,  for  what  he  saw  the  Father  do,  that  only 
he  did;  but  in  this,  his  oneness  with  the  Father,  there  lay  the  uninter- 


the  following  TErapralog  yap  eoti  seems  decisive  that  it  is  a conjecture  of  Martha's, 
drawn  only  from  the  natural  order  of  things,  that  corruption  had  begun.  Yet  Au- 
gustine ( In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract  49):  Eesuscitavit  putentem.  Tertullian  ( JDe  Resur. 
Cam.,  c.  53,)  speaks  of  the  soul  of  Lazarus,  quam  nemo  jam  foetere  senserat.  Hilary 
( DeTrin .,  1.  6.  § 33):  Foetens  Lazarus.  Ambrose  says  of  the  bystanders  (Re  Fide 
Resurr.,  1.  2,  c.  80) : Foetorem  sentiunt.  Bernard  (In  Assam.,  Serm.  4):  Foetere  jam 
coeperat.  Sedulius:  Corruptum  tabo  exhalabat  odorem;  and  a most  disagreeable 
description  in  Prudentius  (Apotheosis,  759 — 766);  Chrysostom  (Horn.  52  in  Joh)', 
and  Calvin : Alios  Christus  suscitavit,  sed  nunc  in  putrido  cadavere  potentiam  suam 
exserit ; and  many  more. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


331 


rupted  power  of  doing  these  mighty  acts.*  Therefore  does  he  explain, 
not  any  more  in  that  lond  voice  which  should  be  heard  by  the  whole 
surrounding  multitude,  but  yet  so  that  his  disciples  might  hear  him, 
what  this  “ Father , I thank  thee  ” means,  and  why  it  was  spoken.  “ / 
knew  that  thou  hearest  me  always:  hut  because  of  the  people  which  stand 
by  I said  it,  that  they  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me .”  For  them  it 
was  wholesome : they  should  thus  understand  that  he  claimed  his  power 
from  above,  and  not  from  beneath ; that  there  was  no  magic,  no  necro- 
mancy here.  The  thanks  to  God  were  an  acknowledgment  that  the 
power  was  from  God. 

Chrysostom  supposes  that  when  this  thanksgiving  prayer  was  ut- 
tered, Lazarus  was  already  re-animated,  and,  being  re-animated,  is  now 
bidden  to  issue  from  the  tomb.  But  rather,  this  cry  “ with  a loud  voice,” 
— this  “ Lazarus,  come  forth ,”  is  itself  the  quickening  word,  at  which 
life  returns  to  the  dead.f  For  it  is  ever  to  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  that 
the  power  of  quickening  the  dead  and  calling  them  from  their  graves  is 
attributed.  Thus,  John  v.  28,  29,  “The  hour  is  coming  in  the  which 
all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth.” 
So,  1 Thes.  iv.  16,  it  is  the  Lord’s  descending  “ with  a shout,”  which  is 
followed  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  Christ.  Nor,  probably,  is  “ the 
last  trump”  of  1 Cor.  xv.  52,  any  thing  else  but  this  voice  of  God  which 
shall  sound  through  all  the  kingdom  of  death.  Many  in  their  zeal  for 
multiplying  miracles,  make  it  a new  miracle,  a wonder  in  a wonder, J 
as  St.  Basil  calls  it,  that  Lazarus  was  able  to  obey  the  summons,  while 
yet  he  was  “ bound  hand  and  foot  with  grave  clothes .”§  But  if  so,  to 
what  end  the  further  word,  “ Loose  him  and  let  him  got” ||  Probably 

* Chrysostom  (Ham.  64  in  Joh.)  enters  at  large  upon  this  point.  Maldonatus 
observes : Nihil  enim  aliud  his  verbis  quam  essentise  voluntatisque  unitatem  signi- 
ficari.  Cf.  Ambrose,  De  Fide,  1.  3,  e.  4. 

f As  Hilary  {De  Trin.,  1 6,  § 33)  expresses  it : Nullo  intervallo  vocis  et  vitae. 
Cyril,  with  reference  to  the  simple  grandeur  of  this  summons,  calls  it  deoirpeTTZg  kcU 
fiaaiXiKov  Ke?.Evcfia. 

\ Qavya  ev  davpa.n.  Cf.  Ambrose,  De  Fid.  Resurr.,  1.  2,  c.  *78.  And  so  Augus- 
tine, ( Enarr . in  Ps.  ci.  21 1 : Processit  ille  vinctus : non  ergo  pedibus  propriis,  sed 
virtute  producentis. 

§ K eipiai  = oOovia,  (John  xix.  40.)  Tertullian : Vincula  linea. 

||  Of  Lazarus  himself  we  have  but  one  further  notice,  (John  xii.  2,)  but  that,  like 
the  command  to  give  meat  to  the  revived  maiden,  (Mark  v.  43,)  like  the  Lord’s  own 
participation  of  food  after  the  resurrection,  (Luke  xxiv.  42 ; John  xxi.  13,)  a witness 
against  any  thing  merely  phantastic  in  his  rising  again.  He  is  generally  assumed  to 
have  been  much  younger  than  his  sisters;  one  tradition  mentioned  by  Epiphanius, 
makes  him  thirty  years  old  at  this  time,  and  to  have  survived  for  thirty  years  more. 
The  traditions  of  his  later  life,  as  that  he  became  Bishop  of  Marseilles,  rest  upon  no 


332 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


he  was  loosely  involved  in  these  grave  clothes,  which  hindering  all  free 
action,  yet  did  not  hinder  motion  altogether ; or,  it  may  be,  that,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Egyptian  fashion,  every  limb  was  wrapped  round  with 
these  stripes  by  itself : in  the  mummies  each  separate  finger  has  some 
times  its  own  wrapping. 

St.  John  here  breaks  off  the  narrative  of  the  miracle  itself,  leaving  us 
to  imagine  their  joy,  who  thus  beyond  all  expectation  received  back 
their  dead  from  the  grave ; a joy,  which  was  well  nigh  theirs  alone, 
among  all  the  mourners  of  all  times, 

“ Who  to  the  verge  have  followed  that  they  love 
And  on  the  insuperable  threshold  stand, 

With  cherished  names  its  speechless  calm  reprove, 

And  stretch  in  the  abyss  their  ungrasped  hand.” 

He  leaves  this,  and  passes  on  to  show  us  the  historic  significance  of  this 
miracle  in  the  development  of  the  Lord’s  earthly  history,  the  permitted 
link  which  it  formed  in  the  chain  of  those  events,  which  were  to  end, 
according  to  the  determinate  decree  and  counsel  of  God,  in  the  atoning 
death  of  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  cross. 

What  the  purpose  was  of  these  Jews  that  “ went  their  ways  to  the  Pha- 
risees,  and  told  them  what  things  Jesus  had  done”  has  been  diversely 
conceived.  By  some,  as  by  Origen,  it  has  been  supposed  that  they 
went  with  a good  intention,  thinking  to  tell  them  that  which  even  they 
could  no  longer  resist,  which  would  make  them  also  acknowledge  that 
this  was  the  Christ.  Yet  the  place  which  this  intimation  occupies  in 
the  narrative  seems  decisively  to  contradict  this  meaning.  Many,  ob- 
serves St.  John,  believed  on  him,  hut  some,  not  of  those  that  believed, 
but  of  the  Jews,  went  and  told  the  Pharisees.  What  else  can  this  mean 
save  that  these  were  persons  who  did  not  believe ; who  on  one  or  an- 
other plea  refused  to  be  convinced  by  this  miracle,  (Luke  xvi.  31,)  and 
went  to  the  professed  enemies  of  the  Lord  to  show  them  what  had  been 
done,  to  irritate  them  yet  more  against  the  doer,*  to  warn  them  also  of 
the  instant  need  of  more  earnestly  counter- working  him  who  had  done, 

good  authority:  yet  there  is  one  circumstance  of  these  traditions  worthy  ot  record, 
although  not  for  its  historic  worth, — that  the  first  question  he  asked  the  Lord  after  he 
was  come  back  from  the  grave,  was  whether  he  should  have  to  die  again,  and  learn- 
ing that  it  must  needs  be  so,  that  he  never  smiled  any  more.  Lazarus,  as  a revenant , 
is  often  used  by  the  religious  romance-writers  of  the  middle  ages  as  a vehicle  for 
their  conceptions  of  the  lower  world.  He  is  made  to  relate  what  he  has  seen  and 
known,  just  as  the  Pamphylian  that  revived,  is  used  by  Plato  in  the  Republic  for 
the  same  purposes.  (Wright’s  St.  Patrick's  Purgatory , p.  167 — 169.) 

* Euthymius : Ovx  &g  davyu&vTeg,  aXkd.  diafiuXXovTEg  ug  yogra. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


333 


or  seemed  to  do,  so  great  a sign1?  and  it  is  observable  that  St.  John  joins 
immediately  with  their  report  to  the  Pharisees  the  increased  activity  in 
the  hostile  machinations  of  these  against  the  Lord. 

And  they  are  indeed  now  seriously  alarmed;  they  anticipate  the 
effects  which  this  greatest  miracle  that  Christ  did  would  have  upon  the 
people,  which  we  know  historically  that  it  actually  had;  (John  xii.  10, 
11,  17 — 19;)  and  they  gather  in  council  together  against  the  Lord  and 
against  his  Anointed.  They  stop  not  to  inquire  whether  the  man,  “ this 
man”  as  they  contemptuously  call  him,  who,  even  according  to  their 
own  confession,  is  doing  many  miracles,  may  not  be  doing  them  in  the 
power  of  God,  whether  he  may  not  be  indeed  the  promised  King  of 
Israel.  The  question  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  his  claims  seems  never 
to  enter  into  their  minds,  but  only  how  the  acknowledgment  of  these 
claims  will  bear  on  the  worldly  fortunes  of  their  order,  and  this  they 
contemplate  under  a somewhat  novel  aspect : “ If  we  let  him  thus  alone , 
all  men  will  believe  on  him : and  the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away 
both  our  place  and  nation .” 

For  at  first  sight  it  seems  difficult  to  understand  how  they  necessa- 
rily connected  together  the  recognition  of  Jesus  for  the  Christ,  and  the 
collision  with  the  Roman  power.  It  was  probably  in  this  way.  “ The 
people  will  acknowledge  him  for  the  Messiah ; he  will  set  himself  at 
their  head,  or  they  by  compulsion  will  place  him  there,  making  him 
their  king;  (John  vi.  15;)  then  will  follow  the  vain  attempt  to  throw 
off  the  foreign  yoke,  to  be  crushed  presently  by  the  superior  power  of 
the  Roman  legions ; and  then  these  will  not  distinguish  the  innocent 
from  the  guilty,  but  will  make  a general  sweep,  taking  away  from  us 
wholly  whatsoever  survives  of  our  power  and  independence,  our  place* 
and  our  nation.”  Or  without  presuming  an  actual  insurrection,  they 
may  have  supposed  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  acknowledging  a Messiah 
would  awaken  the  suspicions  of  the  Romans,  would  by  them  be  ac- 
counted as  an  act  of  rebellion,  to  be  visited  with  these  extremest  penal- 
ties. We  see  how  on  a later  occasion  the  Roman  governor  instantly 

* Tlv  tottov.  Does  this  signify  their  city  or  their  temple  ? A comparison  with 
2 Macc.  v.  19  makes  one  certainly  incline  to  the  latter  view.  (Cf.  Acts  vi.  13,  14; 
xxi.  28.)  The  temple,  round  which  all  their  hopes  gathered,  would  naturally  be 
uppermost  in  the  minds  of  these  members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  We  nowhere  find  the 
same  exaggerated  importance  attributed  to  the  city  as  to  it.  Yet  there  are  many  who 
make  tov  tottov  = rqv  ttoKiv  rjyfiv.  So  Chrysostom,  who  in  quoting  the  passage,  substi- 
tutes, apparently  unconsciously,  tt62.lv  for  tottov.  So  likewise  Theophylact,  Olshausen. 

f Corn,  a Lapide:  Si  omnes  credant  Jesum  esse  Messiam,  regem  Judaeorum 
irritabuntur  contra  nos  Romani  Judaeae  domini,  quod  nobis  novum  regem  et  Messiam, 
puta  Jesum,  creaverimus,  ac  a CaBsare  Tiberio  ad  eum  defecerimus ; quare  armati 


334 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


cort.es  to  this  point ; his  first  question  is,  “ Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
Jews'?”  (John  xviii.  33.)  Augustine  understands  it  somewhat  differ- 
ently,— that  they  were  already  meditating,  as  no  doubt  they  were,  the 
great  revolt  of  a later  time,  and  felt  how  all  the  nerves  of  it  would  be 
cut  by  the  spread  of  the  doctrines  of  this  Prince  of  peace : for  where 
should  they  find  instruments  for  their  purpose  1 All  resistance  to  the 
Roman  power  would  become  impossible ; and  whensoever  these  chose, 
they  would  come  and  rob  them  of  all  which  remained  of  their  national 
existence.*  He  is,  however,  I believe,  single  in  maintaining  this  view, 
and  the  other  is  far  the  more  natural.  The  question  will  still  remain, 
whether  they  who  said  this,  did  truly  feel  the  dread  which  they  pro- 
fessed, or  whether  they  only  pretended  to  fear  these  consequences  from 
the  suffering  Christ’s  ministry  to  remain  uninterrupted,  on  account  of 
a party  in  the  Sanhedrim,  for  such  there  was,  more  or  less  well  affected 
to  Jesus,  (see  John  ix.  16,)  and  who  could  only  thus,  by  this  plea  of  the 
consequences  to  them  and  to  the  whole  nation,  be  won  over  to  the  ex- 
treme measures  now  meditated  against  him.  Chrysostom,  and  most  of 
the  Greek  expositors,  suppose  they  did  but  feign  to  fear,  yet  I cannot 
but  think  that  they  were  sincere  in  their  alarm. 

Probably  many  half  measures  had  been  proposed  by  one  member 
and  another  of  the  Sanhedrim  for  arresting  the  growing  inclination  of 
the  people  to  recognize  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  had  been  debated  back- 
ward and  forward,  such  as  hindering  them  from  hearing  him,  proclaim- 
* ing  anew,  as  had  been  done  before,  that  any  should  be  excommunicated 
who  should  confess  him  to  be  Christ.  (John  ix.  22.)  But  these  mea- 
sures had  already  been  proved  to  be  insufficient ; and  in  that  “ Ye  know 
nothing  at  all ” of  Caiaphas,  we  hear  the  voice  of  the  bold  bad  man, 
silencing,  with  ill-suppressed  contempt,  his  weak  and  vacillating  col- 
leagues, who  could  see  the  common  danger  which  threatened  them,  and 
yet  shrunk,  though  from  no  righteous  principle,  from  applying  the  effec- 
tual remedy.  This  man,  who  threatens  to  imperil  the  whole  nation,  and, 
whether  willingly  or  not,  to  compromise  it  with  the  Roman  power,  must 
be  taken  out  of  the  way : “It  is  expedient  for  us , that  one  man  should 
die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not.”  Caiaphas,  who 
dares  thus  to  come  to  the  point,  and  to  speak  the  unuttered  thought  of 
many  in  that  assembly,  was  a Sadducee,  (Acts  v.  17,)  and  held  the  office 
of  .the  high  priesthood  for  ten  successive  years,  which  makes  some- 

venient  et  vastabunt  et  perdent  Hierosolymam  et  Judaeam,  cum  tota  Judaeorum  gente 
et  republica. 

* In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  49 : Hoc  autem  timuerunt,  ne  si  omnes  in  Christum  crede- 
lent,  nemo  remaneret,  qui  adversus  Romanos  civitatem  Dei  templumque  defenderet 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


335 


thing  of  a difficulty  here;  for  St.  John’s  description  of  him  as  “ being 
the  high  priest  that  same  year”  might  appear  to  imply  that  he  esteemed 
the  high  priesthood  as  a yearly  office  and  elective,  whereas  it  was  in 
truth  for  life  and  hereditary.* * * § 

Now,  though  it  is  quite  true,  that,  through  the  tyranny  of  the  Ro- 
mans, the  high  priesthood  was  as  vilely  prostituted  as,  under  very  simi- 
lar circumstances,  the  patriarch’s  throne  at  Constantinople  is  now  by  the 
Turks,  and  shifted  so  rapidly  from  one  to  another,  as  sometimes  to  re- 
main with  one  occupier  even  for  less  than  this  time,  yet  according  to  its 
idea  it  was  for  the  life  of  the  holder,  and,  in  the  present  case,  it  was  held 
by  this  one  man,  if  not  for  life,  yet  at  least  much  more  than  a single 
year.  The  expression  has  sometimes  been  explained  as  if  St.  John 
would  say  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  for  that  year,  that  ever-memo- 
rable  year  “ when  vision  and  prophecy  should  be  sealed, ”f  and  in  which 
the  Son  of  God  should  die  upon  the  cross.  But  it  seems  easier  to  sup- 
pose that  all  which  St.  John  meant  to  express  was,  that  Caiaphas  was 
high  priest  then  ; whether  he  was  also  such  before  or  after  was  nothing 
to  his  present  purpose.  He  desires  to  bring  out  that  he  was  high  priest 
at  the  time  when  these  words  were  uttered,  because  this  gave  a weight 
and  significance  to  the  words  which  else  they  would  not  have  possessed ; 
and  what  significance  this  was,  and  why  his  words  should  have  had  it, 
he  explains  in  what  follows. 

“ This  spaTce  he  not  of  himself ; but  being  high  priest  that  year , he 
prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation .”  It  is  clear  that  the 
Evangelist  sees  here  an  inner  connection  between  the  words  spoken  and 
the  office  which  the  speaker  filled,  and  herein  lies  the  real  knot  of  the 
passage,  which  has  to  be  untied : for  that  a bad  man  should  have  ut- 
tered words  which  were  so  overruled  by  God  as  to  become  prophetic, 
would  be  no  difficulty.  God,  the  same  who  used  a Balaam  to  declare 
how  there  should  come  a Star  out  of  Jacob  and  a Sceptre  out  of  Israel, 
(Num.  xxiv.  17,)  might  have  used  Caiaphas  to  foreannounce  other  truths 
of  his  kingdom.  J Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  such  unconscious  pro- 
phecies as  this  evidently  is.§ . How  many  prophecies  of  the  like  kind, 

* Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  49)  notes  the  difficulty,  though  lie  has  a singular 
accumulation  of  mistakes  in  his  explanation.  Among  others,  that  Zacharias,  the 
father  of  the  Baptist,  was  high  priest ; a mistake  continually  re-appearing  in  the 
middle  ages.  It  grew  out  of  an  inaccurate  understanding  of  Luxe  i.  9. 

f Lightfoot,  Sermon  on  Judg.  xx.  27.  (Pitman’s  edit.,  v.  6,  p.  280.) 

\ Augustine  adducing  this  prophecy,  exclaims  {Serm.  315,  c.  1):  Magna  vis  est 
veritatis.  Oderunt  veritatem  homines,  et  veritatem  prophetant  nescientes.  Non 
agunt,  sed  agitur  de  illis. 

§ It  exactly  answers  as  such  to  the  omina  of  Roman  superstition,  in  which  words 


386 


THE  BAISING  OE  LAZABUS. 


— most  of  them,  it  is  true,  rather  in  act  than  in  word,  meet  us  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  crucifixion ! What  was  the  title  over  our  blessed 
Lord,  “Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the  Jews,”  but  another  such  a 
scornful  and  contemptuous,  yet  most  veritable,  prophecy?  Or  what 
again  the  robe  and  the  homage,  the  sceptre  and  the  crown  ? And  in  the 
typical  rehearsals  of  the  great  and  final  catastrophe  in  the  drama  of 
God’s  providence,  how  many  Nimrods  and  Pharaohs,  antichrists  that  do 
not  quite  come  to  the  birth,  have  prophetic  parts  allotted  to  them,  which 
they  play  out,  unknowing  what  they  do : for  such  is  the  divine  irony ; 
so,  in  a very  deep  sense  of  the  words, 

Ludit  in  humanis  divina  potentia  rebus  * 

But  the  perplexing  circumstance  is  the  attributing  to  Caiaphas,  as 
high  priest,  these  prophetic  words,  for  prophetic  the  Evangelist  pro- 
nounces them  plainly  to  be,  and  all  attempts  to  get  rid  of  this  as  his 
intention,  and  to  destroy  the  antithesis  between  “ speaking  of  himself  ” 
and  “ prophesying ,”  are  idle.f  There  is  no  need,  however,  to  suppose, 
(and  this  greatly  lightens  the  difficulty,)  that  he  meant  to  affirm  this  to 
have  been  a power  which  always  went  along  with  the  high  priesthood ; 
that  the  high  priest,  as  such,  must  prophecy ; but  only  that  God,  the  ex- 
torter of  those  unwilling,  or  even  unconscious,  prophecies  from  wicked 
men,  ordained  this  further,  that  he  who  was  the  head  of  the  theocratic 

spoken  by  one  person  in  a lower  meaning  are  taken  up  by  another  in  a higher,  and 
by  him  claimed  to  he  prophetic  of  that.  Cicero  ( De  Divin.,  I.  1,  c.  46)  gives  ex- 
amples; these,  too,  resting  on  the  faith  that  men’s  words  are  ruled  by  a higher 
power  than  their  own. 

* Ve  have  an  example  of  this,  in  this  very  name  Caiaphas,  which  is  only  another 
form  of  Cephas,  being  derived  from  the  same  Hebrew  word.  He  was  meant  to  be 
“ the  Bock here,  too,  as  in  names  like  Stephen,  {cretyavog,  the  first  winner  of  the 
martyr’s  crown ,)  the  nomen  et  omen  was  to  have  held  good.  And  such,  had  he  been 
true  to  his  position,  had  the  Jewish  economy  passed  easily  and  without  a struggle 
into  that  for  which  it  was  the  preparation,  he  would  naturally  have  been ; the  first 
in  the  one  would  have  been  first  in  the  other.  But  as  it  was,  he  bore  this  name  but 
in  mockery ; he  was  the  rock  indeed,  but  the  rock  bn  which,  not  the  Church  of  Christ, 
but  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  was  built. 

f For  examples  of  these,  see  Wolf’s  Cures  (in  loc.)  It  has  likewise  been  pro- 
posed to  put  a stop  after  TTpoe^revoev,  and  to  find  here  a device  on  the  part  of  Ca- 
iaphas for  silencing  opposition,  and  for  making  his  own  opinion  to  carry  the  day : 
This  he  spake,  not  as  though  he  was  giving  his  own  opinion,  (ova  a<p  kavroy,)  but 
taking  advantage  of  the  old  faith,  that  on  great  emergent  occasions  the  high  priest 
would  be  endowed  with  oracular  power,  he  professed  now  to  be  uttering  that  which 
was  directly  given  him  by  the  inspiration  of  God.  And  then  on  egeXkev,  k.  t.  2.  are 
words  of  the  Evangelist : He  did  this,  and  succeeded  in  so  getting  the  decree  of  death 
to  be  passed,  for  Jesus  was  about  to  die  for  the  people. 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


337 


people,  for  such,  till  another  high  priest  had  sanctified  himself,  and  his 
moral  character  was  nothing  to  the  point,  Caiaphas  truly  was, — that 
the  man  who  according  to  the  idea  of  the  Levitical  constitution  was  to 
utter  lively  oracles,  wearing  upon  his  breastplate,  while  the  priesthood 
stood  in  its  first  perfection,  the  oracular  stones,  the  Urim  and  the 
Thummim,  which  he  might  consult  on  all  great  affairs  that  concerned 
the  well-being  of  the  nation, — that  this  man,  because  he  bore  this 
office,  should  be  the  organ  of  this  memorable  prophecy  concerning 
Christ  and  the  meaning  and  end  of  his  death  in  regard  of  that  na- 
tion.* 

We  are  not  to  take  these  words  which  follow,  '•’‘and  not  for  that  na- 
tion only , but  that  also  he  should  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of 
God  that  were  scattered  abroad ,”  as  part  of  the  meaning  which  is  legiti- 
mately involved  in  the  words  of  Caiaphas,  but  as  St.  John’s  addition 
to  his  words,  added  to  prevent  a limitation  of  the  benefits  of  the  death 
of  Christ  which  might  seem  to  lie  in  them, — a misinterpretation  which, 
now  that  the  words  had  been  made  more  than  man’s  words,  it  was 
worth  while  to  exclude.  Caiaphas  indeed  prophesied  that  Jesus  should 
die  for  that  nation,  and,  (St.  John,  himself  adds.)  not  for  it  only,  but 
also  for  the  gathering  into  one  of  all  the  children  of  God  which  were 
scattered  abroad  in  the  whole  world.  The  best  parallel  to  this  verse  is 
1 John  ii.  2,  “ He  is  a propitiation  for  our  sins ; not  for  ours  only,  but 
also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.”f  Not  the  Law,  as  the  Jews 

* Vitringa  ( Qbss . Sac 1.  6,  c.  11) : Yisus  est  Caiaphas  Joanni  fatidicum  et  omi- 
nosum  quid  proferre.  Et  vere  sententia  ejus  hujusmodi  est,  ut  altiorem  aliquem 
sensurc  condat. . . .Supponit  igitur  apostolus  non  fuisse  alienum  a Pontifice  Hebras- 
orum  illo  tempore  ir po^rjreveiv,  oracula  fundere,  et  nescium  etiam  mandata  Numinis 
profari.  A Pontifice,  inquam,  hoc  solum  respectu  Deo  commendabili,  quod  Pontifex 
esset ; cum  cseteroquin  personae  ejus  nulla  essent  merita,  quae  facere  poterant,  ut  Deus 
illius  rationem  haberet.  Sed  cum  Deus  Pontifices  constituisset  in  ilia  gente,  publicos 
suae  Legis  voluntatisque  interpretes,  etiamsi  eos  in  universum  propterea  neutiquam 
exemisset  omni  errore  judicii  in  re  religionis;  placuit  illi  Caiaphae  Pontificis  potius 
quam  ullius  alterius  Assessoris  linguam  in  dicenda  sententia  ita  moderari,  ut,  prseter 
animi  sui  consilium,  de  necessitate  et  vero  fine  mortis  Christi  sapienter  loqueretur, 
veramque  ederet  confessionem,  ac  si  non  tanquam  Caiaphas  sententiam  pronunciasset. 
On  the  special  illumination  vouchsafed  to  the  high  priest  as  the  bearer  of  the  ephod, 
see  Bahr’s  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,  v.  2,  p.  136. 

f This  almost  imperceptible  transition  from  the  record  of  another’s  words  to  his 
own  commentary  on  them,  is  very  much  in  St.  John’s  manner.  Thus,  ch.  iii.  from  ver. 
16  to  ver.  21,  is,  most  probably,  not  any  more  the  Lord’s  discourse  to  Nicodemus,  for 
he  nowhere  calls  himself  “ the  only  begotten  son  of  God,”  but  St.  John’s  addition  to 
and  interpretation  of  it : and  the  Baptist’s  reply  to  the  Jews  (iii.  2 1)  hardly  stretches 
to  the  end  of  the  chapter  ; but  from  ver.  31  to  the  end  are  the  narrator’s  own.  And 
not  less  is  it  his  manner  thus  to  guard  against  an  erroneous  interpretation : in  Bengel’s 
words,  Ubique  occurrit  Johannes  interpretation!  sinistrce.  Cf.  xxi.  23. 


338 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


supposed,  but  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  was  that  which  should  bind 
together  all  men  into  one  fellowship : “I,  if  I be  lifted  up  from  the 
earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.”  The  law  was  rather  a wall  of 
separation ; it  was  only  that  death  which  could  knit  together.  We  may 
compare  Ephes.  ii.  13 — 22,  as  the  great  commentary  of  St.  Paul  on 
these  words  of  St.  John.*  The  term  “ children  of  Godf  is  probably 
applied  here  by  anticipation, — those  that,  through  obeying  his  call  when 
it  reached  them,  should  become  hereafter  his  children.  Exactly  in  the 
same  way,  and  in  a parallel  passage,  Christ  says,  “ Other  sheep  I have, 
which  are  not  of  this  fold,”  (John  x.  16,)  others  that  should  be  his 
sheep.  There  is  perhaps  a subordinate  sense  in  which  they  might  be 
termed  the  children  of  God  already, — they  were  the  nobler  natures, 
although  now  run  wild,  among  the  heathen, — the  “ sons  of  peace”  that 
should  receive  the  message  of  peace ; (Luke  x.  6 ;)  in  a sense,  “ of 
the  truth,”  even  while  they  were  sharing  much  of  the  falsehood  round 
them,  so  “ of  the  truth”  that,  when  the  King  of  truth  came  and  lifted 
up  his  banner  in  the  world,  they  gladly  ranged  themselves  under  it. 
(John  xviii.  37;  cf.  Luke  viii.  15;  John  iii.  19 — 21.) 

It  had  now  come  to  a solemn  decree  on  the  part  of  the  Sanhedrim, 
that  Jesus  should  be  put  to  death,  and  from  that  day  forth  there  were 
continual  counsels  among  them  how  his  death  might  be  brought  about : 
but  he,  whose  hour  was  not  yet  come,  withdrew  himself  awhile  from 
their  malice  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  desert  country  lying  north- 
ward of  Jerusalem,  there  to  abide,  till  the  approach  of  the  Passover 
should  bring  him  back  to  the  city,  to  supply  at  length  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb. 

In  the  ancient  Church  there  was  ever  found,  besides  the  literal,  an 
allegorical  interpretation  of  this  and  the  two  other  miracles  of  the  like 
kind.  As  Christ  raises  those  that  are  naturally  dead,  so  also  does  he 
quicken  them  that  are  spiritually  dead ; and  the  history  of  this  miracle 
as  it  abounds  the  most  in  details,  so  was  it  the  most  fruitful  field  on 
which  the  allegorists  exercised  their  skill.  Here  they  found  the  whole 
process  of  the  sinner’s  restoration  from  the  death  of  sin  to  a perfect 
spiritual  life  shadowed  forth;  and  these  allegories  are  often  rich  in 
manifold  adaptations  of  the  history,  as  beautiful  as  they  are  ingenious, 
to  that  which  it  is  made  to  set  oiit.f  Nor  was  this  all;  for  these  three 

* It  is  notable  that  the  word  td'vog  is  here  more  than  once  used  for  the  Jewish 
nation.  In  general  this  is  the  word  used  for  the  Gentiles,  and  “ the  people”  are 
honored  with  the  title  of  Xaog,  as  at  Luke  ii.  32.  Bengel  thinks  it  not  accidental : 
Johannes  non  jam  appellat  Tiabv  populum,  politia  exspirante. 

f See,  for  instance,  Augustine,  Quasi.  83,  qu.  65  ; Bernard,  JDe  Assurn.,  Serin.  4 


THE  RAISING  OF  LAZARUS. 


339 


raisings  from  the  dead- were  often  contemplated  not  apart,  not  as  each 
portraying  exactly  the  same  truth,  hut  in  their  connection  with  one 
another;  as  setting  forth  one  and  the  same  truth  under  different  and 
successive  aspects.  It  was  observed  how  we  have  the  record  of  three 
persons  that  were  restored  to  life, — one,  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  being 
raised  from  the  bed ; another,  the  son  of  the  widow,  from  the  bier ; and 
lastly,  Lazarus,  from  the  grave.  And  it  is  even  thus,  men  said,  that 
Christ  raises  to  newness  of  life  sinners  of  all  degrees ; not  only  those 
who  have  just  fallen  away  from  truth  and  holiness,  like  the  maiden  who 
had  just  expired,  and  in  whom,  as  with  a taper  just  extinguished,  it 
was  by  comparison  easy  to  kindle  a vital  flame  anew ; — but  he  raises 
also  them  who,  like  the  young  man  borne  out  to  his  burial,  have  been 
some  little  while  dead  in  their  trespasses.  Nor  has  he  even  yet  ex- 
hausted his  power ; for  he  quickens  them  also  who,  like  Lazarus,  have 
lain  long  festering  in  their  sins,  as  in  the  corruption  of  the  grave,  who 
were  not  merely  dead,  but  buried, — with  the  stone  of  evil  customs  and 
evil  habits  laid  to  the  entrance  of  their  tomb,  and  seeming  to  forbid  all 
egress  thence  :*  even  this  he  rolls  away,  and  bids  them  to  come  forth, 
loosing  the  bands  of  their  sins  ;f  so  that  anon  we  see  them  sitting  down 
with  the  Lord  at  his  table,  there  where  there  is  not  the  foul  odor  of 
the  grave,  but  where  the  whole  house  is  full  of  the  sweet  fragrance  of 
the  ointment  of  Christ. J (John  xii.  1 — 3.) 

* Gregory  the  Great  {Moral.,  1.  22,  c.  15):  Yeni  foras;  ut  nimirum  homo  in 
peccato  suo  mortuus,  et  per  molem  malge  consuetudinis  jam  sepultus,  quia  intra  con- 
scientiam  suam  absconsus  jacet  per  nequitiam,  a semetipso  foras  exeat  per  confes- 
sionem.  Mortuo  enim,  Yeni  foras,  dicitur,  ut  ab  excusatione  atque  occultatione  pec- 
cati  ad  accusationem  suam  ore  proprio  exire  provocetur.  And  he  refers  to  2 Sam. 
xii.  13.  Thus,  too,  the  Christian  poet : — 

Extra  porlam  jam  delatum, 

Jam  foetentem,  tumulalum, 

Vitta  ligat,  lapis  urget ; 

Sed  si  jubes,  hie  resurget. 

Jube,  lapis  revolvetur, 

Jube,  vitta  dirumpetur, 

Exi turns  nescit  moras, 

Postquam  clamas;  Exi  foras. 

f Sometimes  Augustine  makes  the  stone  to  be  the  Law.  Thus  In  Ev.  Joh., 
Tract.  49:  Quid  est  ergo,  Lapidem  removete  ?. . . .Littera  occidens,  quasi  lapis  est 
premens.  Removete,  inquit,  lapidem.  Removete  Legis  pondus,  Gratiam  praedicate. 
And,  “ Loose  him  and  let  him  go?  is  sometimes  referred  to  the  release  from  Church 
censures.  It  was  Christ’s  word  which  quickened  the  dead ; yet  afterwards  he  used 
men  for  the  restoring  entire  freedom  of  action  to  him  whom  he  had  quickened.  Thus 
Augustine,  Enarr.  in  Fs.  ci.  21 ; and  Serm.  98,  c.  6 : Hie  suscitavit  mortuum,  illi 
solverunt  ligatum. 

\ We  nowhere  find  the  other  raisings  from  the  dead  as  affording  subjects  for 


340 


THE  RAISING-  OF  LAZARUS. 


early  Christian  Art ; but  this  most  frequently,  and  in  all  its  stages.  Sometimes  i\ 
is  Martha  kneeling  at  the  feet  of  Jesus ; sometimes  the  Lord  is  touching  with  his 
wonder-staff  the  head  of  Lazarus,  who  is  placed  upright,  (which  is  a mistake,  and 
a transfer  of  Egyptian  customs  to  Judsea,)  and  rolled  up  as  a mummy,  (which  was 
nearly  correct,)  in  a niche  of  the  grotto ; sometimes  he  is  coming  forth  from  thence 
at  the  word  of  the  Lord.  (Muenter,  Sinnbilden  d.  alt.  Christ,  v.  2,  p.  98.)  From 
a sermon  of  Asterius  we  learn  that  it  was  a custom  in  his  time,  and  Chrysostom  tells 
us  it  was  the  same  among  the  wealthy  Byzantines,  to  have  this  and  many  other  mir- 
acles of  our  Lord  woven  on  their  garments.  “ Here  mayest  thou  see,”  says  Asteriu3, 
“ the  marriage  in  Galilee  and  the  waterpots,  the  impotent  man  that  carried  his  bed 
on  his  shoulders,  the  blind  man  that  was  healed  with  clay,  the  woman  that  had  an 
issue  of  blood  and  touched  the  hem  of  his  garment,  the  awakened  Lazarus ; and 
with  this  they  count  themselves  pious,  and  to  wear  garments  well-pleasing  to  God.” 
How  closo  on  the  edge  of  not  unlike  superstitions  do  we  find  ourselves  at  this  day. 


XXX. 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF  TWO  BLIND  MEN  NEAR  JERICHO. 

Matt.  xx.  29 — 34 ; Make  x.  46 — 52 ; Luke  xviii.  35 — 43. 

This  is  one  of  the  events  in  the  life  of  our  Lord  which  has  put  the 
ingenuity  of  Scripture  harmonists  to  the  stretch.  The  apparent  discre- 
pancies which  it  is  their  task  to  reconcile  are  these.  St.  Matthew 
makes  our  Lord  to  have  restored  sight  to  two  blind  men,  and  this  as  he 
was  going  out  of  Jericho.  St.  Luke  appears  at  first  sight  to  contradict 
both  these  facts,  for  he  makes  the  cure  to  have  taken  place  at  his 
coming  nigh  to  the  city,  and  the  healed  to  have  been  but  one ; while 
St.  Mark  seems  to  stand  between  them,  holding  in  part  to  one  of  his 
fellow  Evangelists,  in  part  to  the  other.  He  with  St.  Luke  names  but 
one  whose  eyes  were  opened,  but  consents  with  St.  Matthew  in  placing 
the  miracle,  not  at  the  entering  into,  but  the  going  out  from,  Jericho,  so 
that  the  narratives  curiously  cross  and  interlace  one  another.  To 
escape  all  difficulties  of  this  kind  there  is  of  course  the  ready  expedient 
always  at  hand,  that  the  sacred  historians  are  recording  different  events, 
tuid  that  therefore  there  is  nothing  to  reconcile,  although  oftentimes  this 
is  an  escape  from  difficulties  of  one  kind,  which  only  really  involves 
in  far  greater  embarrassments  of  another.  Thus,  accepting  this  solu- 
tion, we  must  believe  that  twice,  or  even  thrice,  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  Jericho,  our  Lord  was  besought  in  almost  the  same 
words  by  blind  beggars  on  the  wayside  for  mercy ; — that  on  every 
occasion  there  was  a multitude  accompanying  him,  who  sought  to 
silence  the  vociferations  of  the  claimants,  but  did  only  cause  them  to 
cry  the  more; — that  in  each  case  Jesus  stood  still  and  demanded  what 
they  wanted; — that  in  each  case  they  made  the  same  reply  in  very 
nearly  the  same  words  ; — and  a great  deal  more.  All  this  is  so  unna- 


342 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF 


tural,  so  improbable,  so  unlike  any  thing  of  actual  life,  so  unlike  the 
infinite  variety  which  the  Gospel  incidents  present,  that  any  solution 
seems  preferable  to  this. 

There  are  three  apparently  discordant  accounts,  none  of  them  en- 
tirely agreeing  with  any  other : but  they  can  at  once  be  reduced  to  two 
by  that  rule,  which  in  all  reconciliations  of  parallel  histories  must  be 
held  fast,  namely,  that  the  silence  of  one  narrator  is  not  to  be  assumed 
as  the  contradiction  of  the  statement  of  another ; thus  St.  Mark* * * §  and 
St.  Luke,  making  especial  mention  of  one  blind  man,  do  not  contradict 
St.  Matthew,  who  mentions  two.  There  remains  only  the  difficulty  that 
by  one  Evangelist  the  healing  is  placed  at  the  Lord’s  entering  into  the 
city,  by  the  others  at  his  going  out.  This  is  not,  I think,  sufficient  to 
justify  a duplication  of  the  fact.f  Nor  have  I any  doubt  that  Bengel, 
with  his  usual  happy  tact,  has  selected  the  right  reconciliation  of  the 
difficulty  namely,  that  one  cried  to  him  as  he  drew  near  the  city,§ 
but  that  he  did  not  cure  him  then,  but  on  the  morrow  at  his  going  out 
of  the  city  cured  him  together  with  the  other,  to  whom  in  the  meanwhile 
he  had  joined  himself, — the  Evangelist  relating  by  prolepsis,  as  is  so 
common  with  all  historians,  the  whole  of  the  event  where  he  first  intro- 

* Augustine  ( De  Cons.  Evang .,  1.  2,  c.  65) : Procul  dubio  itaque  Bartimseus  iste 
Tima>l  filius  ex  aliqua  magna  felicitate  dejectus,  notissimse  et  famosissimae  miserise 
fuit,  quod  non  solum  cascus,  verum  etiam  mendicus  sedebat.  Hinc  est  ergo  quod 
ipsum  solum  voluit  commemorare  Marcus,  cujus  illuminatio  tarn  claram  famam  huic 
miraculo  comparavit,  quam  erat  illius  nota  calamitas.  Cf.  Qucest.  Evang.  1.  2,  c.  48. 

f Some,  indeed,  equally  in  old  times  and  in  modern,  have  seen  themselves  bound 
fn  to  such  a'  conclusion: — thus  Augustine  ( JDe  Cons.  Evang.,  1.  2,  c.  65),  who  express- 
es himself  strongly  on  the  matter ; Lightfoot  ( Harmony  of  the  N.  T.,  sect.  69) ; and, 
in  our  own  time,  Mr  Greswell.  On  the  other  hand,  Theophylact,  Chrysostom,  Mal- 
donatus,  Grotius,  have  with  more  or  less  confidence  maintained  that  we  have  here 
but  one  and  the  same  event. 

\ Bengel:  Marcus  unum  commemorat  Bartimseum,  insigniorem,  (x.  46,)  eun- 
demque  Lucas  (xviii.  35)  innuit,  qui  transponendse  historiae  occasionem  exinde  habuit, 
quod  caecorum  alter,  Jesu  Hierichuntem  intrante,  in  via  notitiam  divini  hujus  medici 
acquisivit.  Salvator  dum  apud  Zacchaeum  pranderet,  vel  pernoctaret  potius,  Barti- 
maeo  caecorum  alter,  quern  Matthaeus  adjungit,  interim  associatus  est.  I ooservc 
Maldonatus  had  already  fallen  upon  the  same. 

§ The  explanation  of  Grotius  is,  that  ev  r<3  kyyi&iv  of  Luke  does  not  necessarily 
mean,  and  does  not  here  mean,  When  he  was  drawing  near  to,  but,  When  he  was  in 
the  neighborhood  of, — and  that  this  nearness  to  the  city  might  equally  have  been, 
and  in  this  case  was,  the  nearness  of  one  who  had  just  departed  from  the  city,  and 
not  that  of  one  who  was  now  advancing  to  the  city.  But,  to  set  aside  whether  the 
words  can  mean  this,  the  narrative,  which  follows,  of  Zaccheus,  (introduced  with  a 
teal  eioeldov,)  is  wholly  against  the  supposition  that  St.  Luke  means  to  signify  by 
those  words  that  the  Lord  was  now  leaving  Jericho. 


TWO  BLIND  MEN  NEAR  TEBICHO. 


345 


duces  it,  rather  than,  by  cutting  it  in  two  halves,  preserve  indeed  a 
more  painful  accuracy,  yet  lose  the  total  effect  which  the  whole  narra- 
tive related  at  a breath  would  possess. 

The  cry  with  which  these  blind  men  sought  to  attract  the  pity  of 
Christ  was  on  their  part  a recognition  of  his  dignity  as  the  Messiah ; for 
this  name,  “ Son  of  David ,”  was  the  popular  designation  of  the  Messiah. 
There  was  therefore  upon  their  part  a double  confession  of  faith,  first 
that  he  could  heal  them,  and  secondly,  not  merely  as  a prophet  from 
God,  but  as  the  Prophet,  as  the  one  who  should  come,  according  to  the 
words  of  Isaiah,  to  give  sight  to  the  blind.  In  the  case  of  the  man  blind 
from  his  birth,  (John  ix.)  we  have  the  same  confessions,  but  following, 
and  not  preceding  the  cure,  and  with  intervals  between ; so  that  first  he 
acknowledges  him  as  a prophet,  (ver.  17,)  and  only  later  as  the 
Messiah,  (ver.  38.) 

And  here  the  explanation  has  been  sometimes  found  of  the  rebukes 
which  they  met  from  the  multitude,  who  would  fain  have  had  them  to 
hold  their  peace.  These,  it  has  been  said,  desired  to  hinder  their 
crying,  because  they  grudged  to  hear  given  unto  Jesus  this  title  of 
honor,  which  they  were  not  themselves  prepared  to  accord  him.*  This 
passage  will  then  be  very  much  a parallel  to  Luke  xix.  39 ; only  that 
there  the  Pharisees  would  have  Christ  himself  to  rebuke  those  that  were 
glorifying  him  and  giving  him  honor,  while  here  the  multitude  take  the 
rebuking  into  their  own  hands.  Yet  I hardly  think  the  explanation 
good.  It  was  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  envious  malignant  Pharisees  to 
be  vexed  with  those  Messianic  salutations,  “ Blessed  be  the  King,  that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord but  these  well-meaning  multitudes, 
rude  and  for  the  most  part  spiritually  undeveloped,  as  no  doubt  they 
were,  were  yet  exempt  from  those  spiritual  malignities.  We  never 
trace  aught  of  this  kind  in  them,  but  rather  in  the  main  a sympathy 
with  the  Lord ; it  was  not  they  who  said  that  his  miracles  were  wrought 
in  the  power  of  Beelzebub ; but  they  glorified  God  because  of  them. 
And  here,  too,  I cannot  doubt  but  that  it  was  out  of  an  intention  of 
honoring  Christ  that  they  sought  to  silence  what  appeared  to  them  these 
ill-timed  and  unmannerly  clamors.  It  may  be  that  he  was  teaching  as 
he  went,  and  they  would  not  have  him  interrupted. 

But  their  endeavors  to  suppress  the  crying  of  these  blind  men  pro- 
fited nothing  : on  the  contrary,  “ they  cried  the  more , saying , Have  mercy 
on  us , thou  Son  of  David.”  Many  admirable  homiletic  applications  of 
this  portion  of  the  history  have  been  made.  Here,  it  has  been  often 

* Hilary  ( Comm . in  Matth.,  in  loc.):  Denique  eos  turba  objurgat,  quia  acerbe  a 
caecis  audiunt  quod  negabant,  Dominum  esse  David  Filium. 


344 


THE  OPENING  THE  EYES  OF 


said,  is  the  history  of  many  a soul : when  a man  is  first  in  earnest  about 
his  salvation,  and  begins  to  cry  that  his  eyes  may  be, opened,  that  he 
may  walk  in  his  light  who  is  the  Light  of  men,  when  he  begins  to  de- 
spise the  -world  and  to  be  careless  about  riches,  he  will  find  infinite 
hinderances,  and  these  not  from  professed  enemies  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  but  from  such  as  seem,  like  this  multitude,  to  be  with  Jesus  and 
on  his  side.  Even  they  will  try  to  stop  his  mouth,  and  to  hinder  an 
earnest  crying  to  him.*  And  then,  with  a stroke  from  the  life,  Augus- 
tine makes  further  application  in  the  same  direction  of  the  words  which 
follow*  in  St.  Mark,  who,  speaking  as  but  of  one  that  cried,  says,  “And 
Jesus  stood  still , and  commanded  him  to  be  called * And  they  called  the 
blind  man , saying  unto  him , Be  of  good  comfort , rise;  he  calleth  thee!” 
For,  he  observes,  this  too  repeats  itself  often  in  the  spiritual  history  of 
men’s  lives.  If  a man  will  only  despise  these  obstacles  from  a world 
winch  calls  itself  Christian,  and  overcome  them ; if  despite  of  all  he 
will  go  on,  until  Christ  is  evidently  and  plainly  with  him,  then  they 
who  began  by  reprehending,  will  finish  by  applauding ; they  who  at 
first  said,  He  is  mad,  will  end  with  saying,  “ He  is  a saint.”f 

* Augustine  ( Serm . 349,  c.  5) : Repreliensuri  sunt  nos,  ....  quasi  dilectores  nostri, 
homines  sseculares,  amantes  terrain,  sapient es  pulverem,  nihil  de  coelo  ducentes,  auras 
liberas  corde,  nare  carpentes : repreliensuri  sunt  nos  procul  dubio,  atque  dicturi,  si 
viderint  nos  ista  humana,  ista  terrena  contemnere ; Quid  pateris  ? quid  insanis  ? Turba 
ilia  est  contradicens,  ne  csecus  clamet.  Et  aliquanti  Christiani  sunt,  qui  prohibent 
vivere  Christian^,  quia  et  ilia  turba  cum  Christo  ambulabat,  et  vociferantem  hominem 
ad  Christum  ac  lucem  desiderantem,  ab  ipsius  Christi  beneficio  prohibebat.  Sunt  tales 
Christiani,  sed  vincamus  illos,  vivamus  bene,  et  ipsa  vita  sit  vox  nostra  ad  Christum. 
And  again,  Serm.  88,  c.  13,  14:  Incipiat  mundum  contemnere,  inopi  sua  distribuere, 
pro  nihilo  habere  quae  homines  amant,  contemnat  injurias,  ....  si  quis  ei  abstulerit 
sua,  non  repetat ; si  quid  alieni  abstulerit,  reddat  quadruplum.  Cum  ista  facere  cceperit, 
omnes  sui  cognati,  affines,  amici  commoventur.  Quid  insanis  ? Nimius  es ; numquid 
alii  non  sunt  Christiani?  Ista  stultitia  est,  ista  dementia  est.  Et  caetera  talia  turba 
clamat,  ne  caeci  clament . . . Bonos. Christianos,  veiA  studiosos,  volentes  facere  praecepta 
Dei,  Christiani  mali  et  tepidi  prohibent.  Turba  ipsa  quae  cum  Domino  est  prohibet 
clamantes,  id  est,  prohibet  bene  operantes,  ne  perseverando  sanentur.  Gregory  the 
Great  gives  it  another  turn,  saying  {Horn.  2 in  Evang.) : Saepe  namque  dum  converti 
ad  Dominum  post  perpetrata  vitia  volumus,  dum  contra  haec  eadem  exorare  vitia  quae 
perpetravimus,  conamur,  occurrunt  cordi  phantasmata  peccatorum  quae  fecimus,  mentis 
nostrae  aciem  reverberant,  confundunt  animum,  et  vocem  nostrae  deprecationis  premunt. 
Quae  praeibant  ergo,  increpabant  eum,  ut  taceret  ....  In  se,  ut  suspicor,  recognoscit 
unusquisque  quod  dicimus : quia  dum  ab  hoc  mundo  animum  ad  Deum  mutamus,  dum 
ad  orationis  opus  convertimur,  ipsa  quae  prius  delectabiliter  gessimus,  importuna  postea 
atque  gravia  in  oratione  nostra  toleramus.  Vix  eorum  cogitatio  manu  saneti  desiderii 
ab  oculis  cordis  abigitur ; vix  eorum  phantasmata  per  poenitentiae  lamenta  superantur 

| Augustine  (Serm.  88,  c.  17) : Cum  quisque  Christianus  cceperit  bene  vivere, fer- 
■‘e-ere  bonis  operibus,  mundumque  contemnere,  in  ips&  novitate  operum  suorum  patitui 


TWO  BLIND  MEN  NEAR  JERICHO. 


345 


At  this  cry  of  theirs  “ Jesus  stood  still”  arrested,  as  ever,  by  the 
cry  of  need,  “ and  called  them  or,  in  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  (x.  49,) 
who  throughout  tells  but  of  the  one,  “ commanded  him  to  be  called.  And 
he , casting  away  his  garment ,”  to  the  end  that  he  might  obey  with  the 
greater  expedition,  and  that  he  might  be  hindered  by  nothing,  “ rose  and 
came  to  Jesus  ;” — in  this  ridding  himself  of  all  which  would  have  been 
in  his  way,  used  often  as  an  example  for  every  soul  which  Jesus  has 
called,  that  it  should  in  like  manner  lay  aside  every  weight  and  what- 
ever would  hinder  it  from  coming  speedily  to  him.  (Matt.  xiii.  44,  46 ; 
Phil.  iii.  7.)  The  Lord’s  question,  “ What  wilt  thou  that  I should  do 
unto  thee  ?”  is,  in  part,  an  expression  of  his  readiness  to  aid,  a comment 
in  act  upon  his  own  words,  spoken  but  a little  while  before,  “ The  Son 
of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister (Matt.  xx. 
28,)  in  part  uttered  for  the  calling  out  into  yet  livelier  exercise  the  faith 
and  expectation  of  the  petitioner.  (Matt.  ix.  28.)  The  man,  whose 
cry  has  been  hitherto  a vague  general  cry  for  mercy,  now  singles  out 
the  blessing  which  he  craves,  declares  the  channel  in  which  he  desires 
that  this  mercy  may  run,*  and  makes  answer,  “ Lor d,  that  I might  re- 
ceive my  sight”  Only  St.  Matthew  mentions  the  touching  of  the  eyes 
which  were  to  be  restored  to  vision,  and  only  St.  Luke  the  word  of 
power,  the  “ Receive  thy  sight”  by  which  the  cure  was  effected. , The 
man,  who  had  hitherto  been  tied  to  one  place,  now  used  aright  his  re- 
stored eyesight;  for  he  used  it  to  follow  Jesus  in  the  way,  and  this 
with  the  free  outbreaks  of  a thankful  heart,  himself  “ glorifying  Godf 
and  being  the  occasion  that  others  glorified  his  name  as  well.  (Acts 
iii.  8—10.) 

reprehensores  et  contradictores  frigidos  Christianos.  Si  autem  perseveraverit,  et  eos 
superavcrit  perdurando,  et  non  defecerit  a bonis  operibus ; iidem  ipsi  jam  obsequen- 
tur,  qui  ante  prohibebant.  Tamdiu  enim  corripiunt  et  perturbant  et  vetant,  quamdiu 
sibi  cedi  posse  praesumunt.  Si  autem  victi  fuerint  perseverantia  proficientium,  con- 
vertunt  se  et  dicere  incipiunt,  Magnus  homo,  sanctus  homo,  felix  cui  Deus  concessit. 
Honorant,  gratulantur,  benedicunt,  laudant ; quomodo  ilia  turba  quae  cum  Domino 
erant.  Ipsa  prohibebat  ne  caeci  clamarent;  sed  postquam  illi  ita  clamaverunt,  ut 
mererentur  audiri,  et  impetrare  misericordiam  Domini,  ipsa  turba  rursum  dicit,  Yocat 
vos  Jesus.  Jam  et  hortatores  fiunt,  qui  paulo  ante  corripiebant  ut  tacerent. 

* Gregory-  the  Great,  {Horn.  2 in  Evang.,)  commenting  on  this  request  of  theirs, 
bids  us  to  make  request  for  the  same,  and  in  like  manner  to  concentrate  our  petitions 
on  the  greatest  thing  of  all : Non  falsas  divitias,  non  terrena  dona,  non  fugitivos 
honores  a Domino,  sed  lacem  quseramus ; nec  lucem  quae  loco  clauditur,  quae  tem- 
pore finitur,  quae  noctium  interruptione  variatur,  quae  a nobis  communiter  cum 
pecoribus  cernitur : sed  lucem  quaeramus,  quam  videre  cum  solis  Angelis  possimus, 
quam  nec  initium  inchoat,  nec  finis  angustat. 


XXXI. 


THE  WITHERING  OF  THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE. 


Matt,  xxi.  1 1 — 22;  Mark  xi.  12 — 14,  20 — 24. 


This  miracle  was  wrought  upon  the  Monday  of  the  week  of  Passion. 
On  the  Sunday  of  Palms  our  blessed  Lord  had  made  his  triumphal 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  evening, — since  even  now  his  hour, 
though  close  at  hand,  was  not  altogether  come, — he  retired  from  the 
snares  and  perils  of  the  city  to  the  safer  Bethany,  to  the  house  probably 
of  those  sisters  whom  he  had  so  lately  enriched  with  a restored  brother, 
and  there  passed  the  night.  On  the  morning  of  Monday,  as  he  was 
returning  from  Bethany  to  his  ministry  in  the  city  very  early,  indeed 
before  sunrise,  the  word  against  the  fig-tree  was  spoken.  That  same 
evening  he  with  his  disciples  went  back  to  Bethany  to  lodge  there,  but 
probably  at  so  late  an  hour  that  the  darkness  prevented  these  from 
marking  the  effects  which  had  followed  upon  that  word.  It  was  not  till 
the  morning  of  Tuesday  that  “ they  saw  the  Jig-tree  dried  up  from  the 
roots”  Such  is  the  exact  order  of  the  circumstances,  in  the  telling  of 
which  St.  Mark  shows  himself  a more  accurate  observer  of  times  than 
the  first  Evangelist; — not,  indeed,  that  this  gives  him  any  superiority; 
our  advantage  is  that  we  have  both  narrations : — St.  Matthew’s,  who  was 
concerned  for  the  inner  idea,  and  hurried  on  to  that,  omitting  circum- 
stances which  came  between,  that  he  might  present  the  whole  event  at 
a single  glance,  in  a single  picture,  without  the  historical  perspective, — 
of  which  he  at  no  time  takes  so  much  note,  his  gifts  and  his  aim  being 
different ; — and  also  St.  Mark’s,  who  was  concerned  likewise  for  the 
picturesque  setting  forth  of  the  truth  in  its  external  details,  as  it  was 
linked  with  times  and  with  places,  as  it  gradually  unfolded  itself  before 
the  eyes  of  mien. 


THE  WITHERING  OF  THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE.  34*7 


But  while  such  differences  as  these  are  easily  set  at  one,  and  they 
who  enhance  them  into  difficulties  are  the  true  Pharisees  of  history, 
straining  at  gnats  and  swallowing  camels,  there  are  other  and  undoubted 
difficulties  in  this  narrative,  and  those  not  unworthy  of  consideration. 
And  this  first,  that  our  Lord,  knowing  as  by  his  divine  power  he  must, 
that  there  were  no  figs  upon  that  tree,  should  yet  have  gone  to  seek 
them  there,  should  have  made  to  his  disciples  as  though  he  had  expected  to 
find  them.  It  might  be  anxiously  asked  in  what  way  this  was  consistent 
with  the  perfectness  of  sincerity  and  truth.  Slight  as  would  have  been 
the  deceit,  yet,  if  it  was  such,  it  would  trouble  the  clearness  of  our 
image  of  him,  whom  we  conceive  of  as  the  absolute  Lord  of  truth.  It 
is  again  perplexing,  that  he  should  have  treated  the  tree  as  a moral 
agent,  punishing  it  as  though  unfruitfulness  was  any  guilt  upon  its  part. 
This  would  be  in  itself  perplexing,  but  becomes  infinitely  more  so  by 
the  notice  which  St.  Mark  inserts,  and  which  indeed  our  acquaintance 
with  the  order  of  the  natural  year  would,  without  this  notice,  have  sug- 
gested, that  it  was  not  then  the  time  of  figs : so  that  at  the  time  when 
they  could  not  seasonably  be  expected,  he  sought,  and  was  displeased  at 
failing  to  find  them.  For,  whatever  the  under-meaning  might  have 
been  in  treating  the  tree  as  a moral  agent,  and  granting  that  to  havq 
been  entirely  justified,  yet  does  it  seem  again  entirely  lost  and  ob- 
scured, when  it  was  thus  put  out  of  the  power  of  the  tree  to  be  other- 
wise than  it  was,  namely,  without  fruit.  For  the  symbol  must  needs 
be  carried  through : if  by  a figure  we  attribute  guilt  to  the  tree  for  not 
having  fruit,  we  must  be  consistent,  and  show  that  it  might  have  had 
such, — that  there  was  no  just  and  sufficient  excuse  why  it  should  have 
been  without  this. 

Upon  the  first  point,  that  the  Lord  went  to  the  tree,  appearing  to 
expect  that  he  should  find  fruit  upon  it,  and  yet  knowing  that  he  should 
find  none,  deceiving  thereby  those  who  were  with  him,  who  no  doubt 
believed  that  what  he  professed  to  look  for,  he  expected  to  find,  it  is 
sufficient  to  observe  that  a similar  charge  might  be  made  against  all 
figurative  teaching,  whether  by  word  or  by  deed : for  in  all  such  there 
is  a worshipping  of  truth  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter ; often  a 
forsaking  it  in  the  letter,  for  the  better  honoring  and  establishing  of  it  in 
the  spirit.  A parable  is  told  as  true,  and  though  the  facts  are  feigned, 
yet  is  true,  because  of  the  civeper  truth  which  sustains  the  outward 
fabric  of  the  story  ; it  is  true,  because  it  is  the  shrine  of  truth,  and  be- 
cause the  truth  which  it  enshrines  looks  through  and  through  it.  Even 
so  a symbolic  action  is  done  as  real , as  meaning  something ; and  yet, 
although  not  meaning  the  thing  which  it  professes  to  mean,  is  no  decep- 
tion since  it  means  something  infinitely  higher  and  deeper,  of  which  the 


348 


THE  WITHERING-  OF 


lower  action  is  a type,  and  in  which  that  lower  is  lost  and  swallowed 
up;  transfigured  and  transformed  by  the  higher,  whereof  it  is  made 
the  vehicle.  What  was  it,  for  instance,  here,  if  Christ  meant  not 
really  to  look  for  fruit  on  that  tree,  being  aware  that  it  had  none 
yet  he  did  mean  to  show  how  it  would  fare  with  a man  or  with  a 
nation,  when  God  came  looking  from  it  for  the  fruits  of  righteousness, 
and  found  nothing  but  the  abundant  leaves  of  a boastful  yet  empty 
profession.* 

As  regards  the  second  objection,  that  he  should  have  put  forth  his 
anger  on  a tree,  the  real  objection  lying  at  the  root  of  this  in  many 
minds  oftentimes  is,  that  he  should  have  put  forth  his  anger  at  all; 
that  God  should  ever  show  himself  as  a punishing  God ; that  there 
should  be  any  such  thing  as  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb,  as  the  giving 
account  of  advantages,  as  a dreadful  day.  But  seeing  that  such  things 
are,  how  needful  that  men  should  not  forget  it : yet  they  might  have 
forgot  it,  as  far  as  the  teaching  of  the  miracles  went,  but  for  this  one 
— all  the  others  being  miracles  of  help  and  of  healing.  And  even  the 
severity  of  this,  with  what  mercy  was  it  tempered ! He  did  not,  like 
Moses  and  Elijah,  make  the  assertion  of  God’s  holiness  and  his  hatred 
of  evil  at  the  cost  of  many  lives,  but  only  at  the  cost  of  a single  unfeel- 
ing tree.  His  miracles  of  mercy  were  unnumbered,  and  on  men ; his 
miracle  of  judgment  was  but  one,  and  on  a tree.f 

* Augustine  ( Qucest . Evang., . £,  c.  51) : Non  enim  omne  quod  fingimus  menda- 
cium  est : sed  quando  id  fingimus,  quod  nihil  significat,  tunc  est  mendacium.  Cum 
autem  fictio  nostra  refertur  ad  aliquam  significationem,  non  est  mendacium,  sed  aliqua 
figura  veritat'.i  Alioquin  omnia  quae  a sapientibus  et  sanctis  viris,  vel  etiam  ab  ipso 
Domino  figurate  dicta  sunt,  mendacia  deputabunter,  quia  secundum  usitatum  intel- 
lectum  non  subsistit  veritas  talibus  dictis  ....  Sicut  autem  dicta,  ita  etiam  facta 
finguntur  sine  mendacio  ad  aliquam  rem  significandam  ; unde  est  etiam  illud  Domini 
quod  in  fici  arbore  quaesivit  fructum  eo  tempore,  quo  ilia  poma  nondum  essent.  Non 
enim  dubium  est  illam  inquisitionem  non  fuisse  veram ; quivis  enim  hominum  sciret, 
si  non  divinitate,  vel  tempore,  poma  illam  arborem  non  habere.  Fictio  igitur  quse 
ad  aliquam  veritatem  refertur,  figura  est;  quae  non  refertur,  mendacium  est.  Cf. 
Serm.  89,  4 — 6 : Quaerit  intelligentem,  non  facit  errantem. 

f Hilary  (Comm,  in  Matth.,  in  loc.) : In  eo  quidem  bonitatis  Dominicae  argumen- 
tum  reperiemus.  Nam  ubi  offerre  voluit  procuratae  a se  salutis  exemplum,  virtutis 
suae  potestatem  in  humanis  corporibus  exercuit : spem  futurorum  et  animae  salutem 
curis  praesentium  aegritudinum  commendans : . . . nunc  verb,  ubi  in  contumaces  formam 
severitatis  constituebat,  futuri  speciemdamno  arboris  indicavit,  ut  infidelitatis  pericu- 
lum,  sine  detrimento  eorum  in  quorum  redemptionem  venerat,  doceretur.  Thus,  too, 
Grotius : Clementissimus  Dominus,  quum  innumeris  miraculis  sua  in  nos  aeterna  bene- 
ficia  figurasset,  se  veritatem  judicii,  quod  infrugiferos  homines  manet,  uno  duntaxat 
signo,  idque  non  in  homine,  sed  in  non  sensura  arbore,  adumbravit ; ut  certi  essemus 
bonorum  operum  sterilitatem  gratiae  faecundantis  ademptione  puniri.  Theophylact 


THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE. 


349 


But  then,  say  some,  it  was  unjust  to  deal  thus  with  a tree  at  all, 
since  that,  being  incapable  of  good  or  of  evil,  was  as  little  a fit  object 
of  blame  as  of  praise,  of  punishment  as  reward.  But  this  very  ob- 
jection does,  in  truth,  imply  that  it  was  not  unjust,  that  the  tree  was  a 
thing , which  might  therefore  lawfully  be  used  merely  as  a means 
for  ends  lying  beyond  itself.  Man  is  the  prince  of  creation,  and  all 
things  else  are  to  serve  him,  and  then  rightly  fulfil  their  subordinate 
uses  when  they  do  serve  him, — in  their  life  or  in  their  death, — yielding 
unto  him  fruit,  or  warning  him  in  a figure  what  shall  be  the  curse  and 
penalty  of  unfruitfulness.  Christ  did  not  attribute  moral  responsibilities 
to  the  tree,  when  he  smote  it  because  of  its  unfruitfulness,  but  he  did 
attribute  to  it  a fitness  for  representing  moral  qualities.*  All  our  lan- 
guage concerning  trees,  a good  tree,  a bad  tree,  a tree  which  ought  to 
bear,  is  exactly  the  same  continual  transfer  to  them  of  moral  qualities, 
and  a witness  for  the  natural  fitness  of  the  Lord’s  language, — the  lan- 
guage indeed  of  an  act,  rather  than  of  words.  By  his  word,  however, 
(Luke  xiii.  6 — 9,f ) he  had  already  in  some  sort  prepared  his  disciples 

brings  out  in  the  same  way  the  <j>Llavdpoma  of  this  miracle ; £ ypatvei  ovv  to  devdpov, 
Iva  aoxppoviay  dvOpuizovg. 

* Witsius  ( Meletem  Leiden.,  p.  414)  expresses  this  excellently  well:  At  quid 
tandem  commisit  infelix  arbor,  ob  quam  rem  tam  inopinato  mulctaretur  exitio  ? Si 
verborum  proprietatem  sectemur,  omnino  nihil.  Creaturse  enim  rationis  expertes,  uti 
virtutis  ac  vitii,  ita  et  prsemii  ac  pcente,  proprie  et  strict^  loquentes,  incapaces  sunt. 
Potest  tamen  in  creaturis  istis  aliquid  existere,  quod,  analogica  et  symbolica  quadam 
ratione,  et  vitio  et  p cense  respondeat.  Defectus  fructuum  in  arbore  cseteroquin  gene- 
rosa,  succulenta,  bene  plantata,  frondosa,  multa  pollicente,  symbolice  respondet  vitio 
animi  degenerantis,  luxuriosi,  ingrati,  simulati,  superbi,  vera  tamen  virtute  destituti ; 
subitanea  arboris  ex  imprecatione  Christi  arefactio,  qua  tollitur  quidquid  in  arbore 
videbatur  esse  boni,  analogiam  quandam  habet  cum  justissima  Christi  vindicta,  qua 
in  eos  animadvertit,  qui  benignitate  sua  abutuntur.  Quemadmodum  igitur  peccata 
ista  hominum  vere  merentur  pcenam,  ita  /car’  dvakoyiav  dici  potest,  arborem,  ita  uti 
descripsimus  comparatam,  mereri  exitium. 

f It  is  very  noticeable  that  the  only  times  that  the  fig-tree  appears  prominently 
in  the  Uew  Testament,  it  appears  as  the  symbol  of  evil ; here  and  at  Luke  xiii.  6. 
Isidore  of  Pelusium  (in  Cramer’s  Catena,  in  loc.)  refers  to  the  old  tradition,  that  it 
was  the  tree  of  temptation  in  Paradise.  For  traditions  of  impurity  connected  with  it, 
see  Tertullian,  De  Pudicit.,  c.  6.  Buffon  calls  it  arbre  indecent ; for  explanation  of 
which  see  a learned  note  in  Sepp’s  Leben  Jesu,  v.  8,  p.  225,  seq.  Bernard  (In  Cant. 
Serm.,  60,  3) : Maledicit  ficulnese  pro  eo  quod  non  invenit  in  ea  fructum.  Bene  ficus, 
quse  bona  licet  Patriarcharum  radice  prodierit,  nunquam  tamen  in  altnm  proficere, 
numquam  se  humo  attollere  voluit,  numquam  respondere  radici  proceritate  ramorum, 
generositate  florum,  foecunditate  fructuum.  Male  prorsus  tibi  cum  tua  radice  con- 
venit,  arbor  pusilla,  tortuosa,  nodosa.  Radix  enim  sancta.  Quid  e&  dignum  tuis 
apparet  in  ramis  ? The  Greek  proverbial  expressions  avuivog  uvrjg,  a poor  strength- 
less man,  gvklvtj  htiKovpia,  unhelpful  help,  supply  further  parallels. 


350 


THE  WITHERING  OF 


for  understanding  and  interpreting  his  act ; and  the  not  unfrequont  use 
of  this  very  symbol  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  at  Hos.  ix.  10 ; Joel  i.  7, 
must  have  likewise  helped  them  to  this. 

But  allowing  all  this,  do  not  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  “ for  the  time  of 
figs  was  not  yetfi  acquit  the  tree  even  of  this  figurative  guilt ; does  not 
the  fact  thus  mentioned  defeat  the  symbol,  and  put  it,  so  to  speak,  in 
contradiction  with  itself? — does  it  not  perplex  us  as  regards  our  Lord’s 
conduct,  that  he  should  have  looked  for  figs,  when  they  could  not  have 
been  there ; — that  he  should  have  been  as  though  indignant,  when  he 
did  not  find  them  ? The  simplest,  and  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  entirely 
satisfying  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is  the  following.  At  that  early 
period  of  the  year,  March  or  April,  neither  leaves  nor  fruit  were  natu- 
rally to  be  looked  for  on  a fig-tree,  (the  passages  often  quoted  to  the  con- 
trary not  making  out,  as  I think,  their  point,*)  nor  in  ordinary  circum- 

* Moreover,  all  the  explanations  which  go  to  prove  that,  according  to  the  natural 
order  of  things,  in  a climate  like  that  of  Palestine,  there  might  have  been,  even  at  this 
early  time  of  the  year,  figs  on  that  tree,  either  winter  figs  which  had  survived  till 
spring,  or  the  early  figs  of  spring  themselves,  all  these,  ingenious  as  they  often  are,  yet 
seem  to  me  beside  the  matter.  For  without  entering  further  into  the  question,  whether 
they  prove  their  point  or  not,  they  shatter  upon  that  ov  yclg  rjv  Kcupog  ovkuv,  of  St.  Mark ; 
from  which  it  is  plain  that  no  such  calculation  of  probabilities  brought  the  Lord  thither, 
but  those  abnormal  leaves,  which  he  counted  might  have  been  accompanied  with  ab- 
normal fruit.  Four  or  five  dealings  with  these  words  have  been  proposed,  by  which 
it  is  sought  to  make  them  not  mean  that  which  they  bear  upon  their  front,  and  so  lb 
disencumber  the  passage  of  difficulties,  with  which  otherwise,  according  to  the  ordinary 
interpretations,  it  is  laden.  To  begin  then  with  the  worst,  it  is,  I think,  that  which 
places  a note  of  interrogation  at  the  end  of  these  words,  and  makes  the  sacred  histo- 
rian to  burst  out  in  an  exclamation  of  wonder  at  the  barrenness  of  the  fig-tree, — “ For 
was  it  not  the  time  of  figs  F But  this  sort  of  passionate  narration — this  supplying  the 
reader  with  his  feelings  ready  made,  his  wonder,  his  abhorrence,  his  admiration — is 
that,  tbs  uniform  absence  of  which  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  very  most  striking  features 
of  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  which,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  could  have  found  place 
here.  To  pass  on  to  one  scarcely  better,  though  certainly  more  ingenious ; it  is  that 
which  Daniel  Heinsius  first  proposed,  and  to  which  Knatchbull,  Gataker,  and  others, 
have  assented.  His  help  is  in  a different  pointing  and  accenting  of  the  passage,  as 
thus,  oij  yag  ijv,  naipbg,  cvkov  “ for  where  he  was,  it  was  the  season  of  figs,” — in  the  mild 
climate  of  Judaea,  where,  as  we  know,  the  fruits  of  the  earth  ripened  nearly  a month 
earlier  than  in  Galilee.  But  all  MSS.  and  ancient  versions  are  opposed  to  this  view 
of  the  passage ; and  to  express  ibi  loci  by  oi > yag  rjv  is  a very  questionable  proceeding. 
Deyling  ( Obss . Sac.,  v.  3,  p.  277)  supports  an  explanation  which  is  preferable  to  this. 
He  makes  ov  ==  ovttg),  and  naipog  = tempus  colligendi  fructus,  the  time  for  the  gather- 
ing the  figs.  Their  harvest  had  not  yet  arrived ; therefore  the  Lord  could  reasonably 
have  looked  for  some  upon  the  tree ; and  the  words  will  be  an  explanation,  not  of 
the  words  “he  found  nothing  but  leaves,”  immediately  going  before,  but  of  his  earlier 
mentioned  going  to  the  tree,  expecting  to  find  fruit  thereon.  This  explanation  has 


THE  LORD’S  PRAYER. 

Our  Father  which  art 
in  heaven,  Hallowed  be 
thy  name.  Thy  king- 
dom come.  Thy  will 
be  done  in  earth,  as  it  is 
in  heaven.  Give  us 
this  day  our  daily 
bread.  And  forgive  us 
our  debts,  as  we  forgive 
our  debtors.  And  lead 
us  not  into  temptation, 
but  deliver  us  from 
evil.  For  thine  is  the 
kingdom,  and  the  pow- 
er, and  the  glory,  for 
ever.  Amen. 


THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE. 


351 


stances  would  any  one  have  sought  them  there.  But  that  tree,  by  put- 
ting forth  leaves,  made  pretension  to  be  something  more  than  others,  to 
have  fruit  upon  it,  seeing  that  in  the  fig-tree  the  fruit  appears  before 
the  leaves.*  This  tree,  so  to  speak,  vaunted  itself  to  be  in  advance  of 

Kuinoel,  Wetstein,  and  others,  upon  its  side.  The  fact  of  the  remoteness  of  the  words 
to  which  this  clause  will  refer,  is  not  fatal  to  this  meaning,  for  similar  instances  might 
be  adduced  from  St.  Mark,  as  xvi.  3,  4 ; and  xii.  12,  where  the  words,  “ for  they  knew 
that  he  had  spoken  against  them,”  are  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  they  sought  to 
lay  hold  on  him,  not  of  their  fearing  the  people.  But  tcatpog  ruv  napiruv,  (Matt.  xxi. 
34,  cf.  Luke  xx.  10,)  on  which  the  upholders  of  this  scheme  greatly  rely,  means  the 
time  of  the  ripe  fruits,  and  not  the  time  for  their  ingathering. 

That,  however,  which  has  found  more  favor  than  any  of  these,  and  which  Ham- 
mond, D’Outrein,  and  many  more  have  embraced,  would  make  icatpog  = natpbg  evtyopog, 
and  would  understand  St.  Mark  to  be  saying,  It  was  an  unfavorable  season  for  figs. 
A very  old,  although  almost  unnoticed  reading,  6 yap  natpog  ovk  rjv  gvkuv,  would  be 
still  more  favorable  to  this  explanation.  Yet  still  we  want  some  example  of  tzatpog 
alone  being  used  as  = Katpog  ev^opog,  for  Matt.  xiii.  30,  Luke  xx.  10,  which  are  some- 
times adduced,  do  not  satisfy.  This,  slightly  modified,  is  Olshausen’s  meaning,  and 
that  of  a writer  in  the  Theol.  Stud,  und  Krit.,- 1843,  p.  131,  seq.  These  do  not  make 
Katpog  exactly  “ season,”  since  the  season  for  the  chief  crop,  whether  good  or  bad,  had 
not  yet  arrived,  and  therefore  there  would  be  no  room  for  expressing  a judgment 
about  it ; but  they  take  it  in  the  sense  of  weather,  temperature  ; Katpog  = tempus 
opportunum.  If  there  had  been  favorable  weather,  that  is,  such  as  had  been  at  once 
moist  and  warm,  there  would  have  been  figs  on  the  tree ; not  indeed  the  general  crop, 
but  the  ficus  prsecox,  (see  Plint,  II.  N.,  1.  15,  c.  19,)  the  early  spring  fig,  which  was 
counted  an  especial  Ulicacy,  (“  the  figs  that  are  first  ripe,”  Jer.  xxiv.  2,)  and  to  which 
Isaiah  alludes  (xxviii.  4)  as  “ the  hasty  fruit  before  the  summer,  which  when  he  that 
looketh  upon  it  seeth,  while  it  is  yet  in  his  hand,  he  eateth  it  up”  (cf.  Hos.  ix.  10) ; 
or  if  not  these,  the  late  winter  fig,  which  Shaw  mentions  (Winer’s  Real  Worterbuch, 
s.  v.  Feigenbaum ) as  first  ripening  after  the  tree  has  lost  its  leaves,  and  hanging  on 
the  tree,  in  a mild  season,  into  the  spring.  The  writer  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
has  certainly  brought  a passage  much  to  the  point  in  support  of  this  view  of  k atpog 
as  favorable  weather.  It  is  this,  from  the  Hecuba  of  Euripides, — 

O vkovv  detvov,  el  yy  ptbv  icaicf} 

Tvxovaa  naipov  OeoOev,  ev  ardxvv  (j>epei, 

Xpr/ary  6’,  afiaprovcf  uv  XPe^v  ^vryv  rvxe.lv, 

Kaitov  deduct  lcapnov. 

Upon  Katpog  here,  Matthise  says:  Quum  Katpog  omnia  com plectatur,  quse  alicui  rei 
opportuna  et  consentanea  sunt,  jioc  loco  proprie  significat  omnia  ea,  quse  agris,  ut 
fructus  ferant,  accommodata  sunt,  ut  pluviam,  coeli  commodam  temperiem,  quo  sensu 
accepisse  Euripidem  ex  adjecto  Oeodev  patet.  Yet  allowing  all  this,  there  is  a long 
step  between  it  and  proving  Katpog  gvkuv  to  be  = tempus  opportunum  ficis.  The 
great  advantage  of  the  exposition  given  in  the  text  is,  that  it  requires  no  violence  to 
be  done  to  the  words,  but  takes  them  in  that  sense  in  which  every  one,  but  for  diffi- 
culties which  seem  to  follow,  would  take  them. 

* Pliny  (H.  JY,  1.  16,  c.  49) : Ei  demum  serius  folium  nascitur  quam  pomum. 


352 


THE  WITHERING  OF 


all  the  other  trees,  challenged  the  passer-by  that  he  should  come  and 
refresh  himself  with  its  fruit.  Yet  when  the  Lord  accepted  its  chal- 
lenge, and  drew  near,  it  proved  to  be  but  as  the  others,  without  fruit  as 
they ; for  indeed,  as  the  Evangelist  observes,  the  time  of  figs  had  not 
yet  arrived, — its  fault,  if  one  may  use  the  word,  lying  in  its  pretension, 
in  its  making  a show  to  run  before  the  rest,  when  it  did  not  so  indeed. 
It  was  condemned,  not  so  much  for  having  no  fruit,  as  for  this,  that  not 
having  fruit,  it  clothed  itself  abundantly  with  leaves,  with  the  foliage 
which,  being  there,  did,  according  to  the  natural  order  of  the  tree’s  de- 
velopment, give  pledge  and  promise  that  fruit  should  be  found  on  it,  if 
sought. 

And  this  will  then  exactly  answer  to  the  sin  of  Israel,  which  under 
this  tree  was  symbolized, — that  sin  being  not  so  much  that  they  were 
without  fruit,  as  that  they  boasted  of  so  much.  Their  true  fruit,  the 
true  fruit  of  any  people  before  the  Incarnation,  would  have  been  to  own 
that  they  had  no  fruit,  that  without  Christ,  without  the  incarnate  Son 
of  God,  they  could  do  nothing;  to  have  presented  themselves  before 
God,  bare  and  naked  and  empty  altogether.  But  this  was  exactly  what 
Israel  refused  to  do.  Other  nations  might  have  nothing  to  boast  of,  but 
they  by  their  own  showing  had  much.*  And  yet  on  closer  inspection, 
the  reality  of  righteousness  was  as  much  wanting  on  their  part  as  any 
where  besides. 

And  how  should  it  have  been  otherwise  ? “ for  the  time  of  figs  was 
not  yet — the  time  for  the  bare  stock  and  stem  of  humanity  to  array 
itself  in  bud  and  blossom,  with  leaf  and  fruit,  had  not  come,  till  its 
ingrafting  on  the  nobler  stock  of  the  true  Man.  All  which  anticipated 
this,  which  would  say  that  it  could  be  any  thing  or  do  any  thing  other- 
wise than  in  him  and  by  him,  was  deceitful  and  premature.  The  other 
trees  had  nothing,  but  they  did  not  pretend  to  have  any  thing ; this  tree 
had  nothing,  but  it  gave  out  that  it  had  much.  So  was  it  severally  with 
Gentile  and  with  Jew.  The  Gentiles  were  bare  of  all  fruits  of  right- 
eousness, but  they  owned  it;  the  Jews  were  bare,  but  they  vaunted  that 
they  were  full.  The  Gentiles  were  sinners,  but  they  hypocrites  and  pre- 
tenders to  boot,  and  by  so  much  further  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
more  nigh  unto  a curse.  \ Their  guilt  was  not  that  they  had  not  the 
perfect  fruits  of  faith,  for  it  was  not  the  season  for  such  ; the  time  of  these 

* It  is  not  a little  remarkable  that  it  was  with  the  fig-leaves  that  in  Paradise 
Adam  attempted  to  deny  his  nakedness,  and  to  present  himself  as  other  than  a sinner 
before  God.  (Gen.  iii.  'I.) 

\ Witsius  (Meletem.  Leiden , p.  415):  Folia  sunt  jactatio  Legis,  templi,  cultus, 
ceerimoniarum,  pietatis  denique  et  sanctimonise,  quarum  se  specie  valcL  efferebant. 
Fructus  sunt  resipiscentia,  fides,  sanctitas,  quibus  carebant. 


THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE. 


353 


was  not  yet ; but  that,  not  having,  they  so  boastfully  gave  out  that  they 
had, — not  that  they  were  not  healed,  but  that,  being  unhealed,  they 
counted  themselves  whole.  The  Law  would  have  done  its  work,  the 
very  work  for  which  God  ordained  it,  if  it  had  stripped  them  of  these 
boastful  leaves,  or  rather  had  prevented  them  from  ever  putting  them 
forth. 

Here,  then,  according  to  this  explanation,  there  is  no  difficulty  either 
in  the  Lord’s  going  to  the  tree  at  that  unseasonable  time, — he  would 
not  have  gone,  but  for  those  deceitful  leaves  which  announced  that  fruit 
was  there, — nor  in  the  (symbolical)  punishment  of  the  unfruitful  tree  at 
this  season  of  the  year,  when  according  to  the  natural  order  it  could  not 
have  had  any.  It  was  punished  not  for  being  without  fruit,  but  for  pro- 
claiming by  the  voice  of  those  leaves  that  it  had  such, — not  for  being 
barren,  but  for  being  false.  And  this  was  the  guilt  of  Israel,  a guilt  so 
much  deeper  than  the  guilt  of  the  nations.  The  attentive  study  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans  supplies  the  true  key  to  the  right  understanding 
of  this  miracle ; such  passages  especially  as  ii.  3,  17 — 27 ; x.  3,  4,  21 ; 
xi.  7,  10.  Nor  should  that  remarkable  parallel,  Ezek.  xvii.  24:  “And 
all  the  trees  of  the  field  shall  know  that  I the  Lord  . . . have  dried  up  the 
green  tree  and  made  the  dry  tree  to  flourish,”  be  left  out  of  account.* 
And  then  the  sentence,  11  No  man  eat  fruit  of  thee  hereafter  for  ever ,” 
will  be  just  the  reversal  of  the  blessing  that  in  them  all  nations  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed — the  symbolic  counterstroke  to  the  ratification 
of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  through  the  putting  forth,  by  Aaron’s  rod,  of 
bud  and  blossom  and  fruit  in  a night.  Henceforth  the  Jewish  synagogue 
is  stricken  with  a perpetual  barrenness  ;f  it  once  was  every  thing,  but 
now  it  is  nothing,  to  the  world ; it  stands  apart,  like  a thing  forbid ; 
what  little  it  has,  it  communicates  to  none ; the  curse  has  come  upon  it, 
that  no  man  henceforward  shall  eat  fruit  of  it  for  ever.}; 

* It  is  possible,  and  some  have  thought,  that  our  Lord  has  another  allusion  to 
what  here  he  had  done  in  those  other  words  of  his,  “ If  they  do  these  things  in  a 
green  tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?”  (Luke  xxiii.  31 ;)  if  God  so  dealt  with 
him  “ a green  tree,”  full  of  sap,  full  of  life,  if  he  thus  bruised  and  put  him  to  pain, 
how  should  he  deal  with  Israel  after  the  flesh,  a “ dry”  tree,  withered  and  dried  up 
under  the  power  of  that  curse  which  had  been  spoken  against  it  ? 

f Witsius  (Meletem.  Leiden.,  p.  415) : Parabolica  ficus  maledictio  significavit,  fu- 
turum  esse  ut  populus  Israeli ticus,  justa  Dei  indignatione,  omni  vigore  et  succo  spiri- 
tuals foecunditatis  privetur,  et  quia  fructus  bonorum  operum  proferre  isthoc  tempore 
noluit,  dein  nec  possit.  Ac  veluti  maledictionis  sententiam  ficus  arefactio  protinus 
excepit,  sic  et  Judasorum  natio,  mox  post  spretum  proterv^  Messiam,  exaruit. 

% Augustine  brings  out  often  and  very  strikingly  the  figurative  character  of  this 
miracle  ; — though,  with  most  other  expositors,  he  misses  what  seems  to  me  the  chief 
stress  of  this  tree’s  (symbolic)  guilt,  and  that  which  drew  on  it  the  curse,  namely,  its 

45 


354 


THE  WITHERING  OF 


And  yet  this  “ for  ever ” has  its  merciful  limitation,  when  we  come 
to  transfer  the  curse  from  the  tree  to  that  of  which  the  .tree  was  as  a 
living  parable ; a limitation  which  the  word  itself*  favors  and  allows ; 
which  lies  hidden  in  it,  to  be  revealed  in  due  time.  None  shall  eat  fruit 
of  that  tree  to  the  end  of  the  presetit  aeon,  not  until  these  “ times  of  the 
Gentiles”  are  fulfilled.  A day  indeed  will  come  when  Israel,  which  now 
says,  “ I am  a dry  tree,”  shall  consent  to  that  word  of  its  true  Lord, 
which  of  old  it  denied,  “From  me  is  thy  fruit  found,”  and  shall  be  ar- 
rayed with  the  richest  foliage  and  fruit  of  all  the  trees  of  the  field. 
The  Lord,  in  his  great  discourse  upon  the  last  things  (Matt,  xxiv.)  im- 
plies this,  when  he  gives  this  commencing  conversion  of  the  Jews  under 
the  image  of  the  re-clothing  of  the  bare  and  withered  fig-tree  with  leaf 
and  bud,  as  the  sign  of  the  breaking  in  of  the  new  aeon,  which  he  does, 
saying,  “Now  learn  a parable  of  the  fig-tree.  When  his  branch  is  yetf 
tender,  and  putteth  forth  leaves,  ye  know  that  summer  is  nigh : so  like- 
wise ye,  when  ye  shall  see  all  these  things,  know  that  it  is  r.  ear,  even  at 
the  doors.”  (ver.  32,  33.) 

It  would  appear  from  St.  Matthew  that  some  beginnings  of  the  threat- 
ened withering  began  to  show  themselves,  almost  as  soon  as  the  word 
of  the  Lord  was  spoken;  a shuddering  fear  may  have  run  through  all 
the  leaves  of  the  tree,  which  was  thus  stricken  at  its  heart.  But  it  was 
not  till  the  next  morning,  as  the  disciples  returned,  that  they  took  note 

running  before  its  time,  and  by  its  leaves  proclaiming  it  had  fruit,  when  its  true  part 
and  that  which  the  season  would  have  justified,  would  have  been  to  present  itself 
with  neither.  He,  in  the  following  quotations,  otherwise  so  admirable,  makes  its  bar- 
renness, contrasted  with  its  pomp  of  leaves,  to  be  the  stress  of  its  fault,  putting  out 
of  sight  the  untimeliness  of  those  leaves  and  of  that  pretence  of  fruit  which  is  the  most 
important  element  in  the  whole.  Thus  ( Serm . TT,  c.  5) : Etiam  ipsa  quae  a Domino 
facta  sunt,  aliquid  significantia  erant,  quasi  verba,  si  dici  potest,  visibilia  et  aliquid 
significantia.  Quod  maxima  apparet  in  eo  quod  praeter  tempus  poma  quaesivit  in  ar- 
bore,  et  quia  non  invenit,  arbori  maledicens  aridam  fecit.  Hoc  factum  nisi  figuratum 
accipiatur,  stultum  invenitur ; primo  qusesisse  poma  in  ilia  arbore,  quando  tempus  non 
erat  ut  essent  in  ulla  arbore : deinde  si  pomorum  jam  tempus  esset,  non  habere  poma 
quae  culpa  arboris  esset  ? Sed  quia  significabat,  quaerere  se  non  solum  folia,  sed  et 
fructum,  id  est,  non  solum  verba,  sed  et  facta  hominum,  arefaciendo  ubi  sola  folia  in- 
venit,  significavit  eorum  pcenam,  qui  loqui  bona  possunt,  facere  bona  nolunt.  Cf 
Serm.  98,  c.  3 : Christus  nesciebat,  quod  rusticus  sciebat  ? quod  noverat  arboris  cultor, 
non  noverat  arb'oris  creator  ? Gum  ergo  esuriens  poma  quaesivit  in  arbore,  significavit 
se  aliquid  esurire,  et  aliquid  aliud  quaerere  ; et  arborem  illam  sine  fructu  foliis 
plenam  reperit,  et  maledixit ; et  aruit.  Quid  arbor  fecerat  fructum  non  afferendo  ? 
Quae  culpa  arboris  infecunditas  ? Sed  sunt  qui  fructum  voluntate  dare  non  possunt 
Riorum  est  culpa  sterilitas,  quorum  fecunditas  est  voluutas. 

* Elf  tov  altiva. 

f Or  rather  “ is  now,”  fjdrj. 


THE  FRUITLESS  FIG-TREE. 


355 


of  the  utter  perishing  of  the  tree,  which  had  followed  upon  that  word . 
spoken,  so  that  it  was  “ dried  up  from  the  roots ,”  and  called  their  Lord’s 
.attention  to  the  same : “ Master , behold  the  fig-tree  which  thou  cursedst , 
is  withered  away.”*  The  Lord  will  not  let  the  occasion  go  by  without 
its  further  lesson.  What  he  had  done,  they  might  do  the  same  and 
more.  Faith  in  God  would  place  them  in  relation  with  the  same  power 
which  he  wielded,  so  that  they  might  do  mightier  things  even  than  this 
at  which  they  marvelled  so  much. 


* In  the  tone  in  which  this  observation  was  made,  an  interrogation  was  implied ; 
they  would  observe  that  it  was  so,  and  ask  of  him  how  it  was  so.  This  is  yet  more 
evident  in  St.  Matthew’s  “ How  soon  is  the  fig-tree  withered  away !”  by  many  made 
an  interrogation ; thus  in  Bishop  Lloyd’s  edition,  who  prints  tt apaxprjya  et-rjpavOij 

h cvnr/ ; but  in  that  Tvug  there  is  not  an  express  question,  only  an  interrogative  ex- 
clamation. 


XXXII. 


THE  HEALING  OF  MALCHUS’S  EAR. 

Luke  xxii.  49 — 51. 


Tiie  cutting  off  the  ear  of  the  servant  of  the  high  priest  by  one  o\  the 
disciples,  who  would  fain  have  fought  for  his  Master  that  he  should  not 
be  delivered  to  the  Jews,  is  related  by  all  four  Evangelists,  (Matt.  xxvi. 
51;  Mark  xiv.  47;  Luke  xxii.  50;  John  xviii.  10;)  but  the  miracle 
belongs  only  to  St.  Luke,  for  he  only  tells  how  the  Lord  made  good  the 
wrong  which  his  disciple  had  inflicted.  And  we  may  trace,  perhaps,  in 
this  Evangelist  a double  interest  which  might  have  specially  moved  him 
to  the  including  in  his  Gospel  this  work  of  grace.  As  a physician,  this 
cure,  the  only  one  of  its  kind  which  we  know  of  our  Lord’s  performing, 
the  only  miraculous  healing  of  a wound  inflicted  by  external  violence, 
would  attract  his  special  attention.  And  then,  besides,  there  was 
nothing  nearer  to  St.  Luke’s  heart,  or  that  cohered  more  intimately 
with  the  purpose  of  his  Gospel,  than  the  portraying  of  the  Lord  on  the 
side  of  his  gentleness,  his  mercy,  and  benignity ; all  which  so  gloriously 
shone  out  in  this  gracious  work  in  favor  of  one  who  was  in  arms  against 
his  life. 

The  Evangelist,  no  doubt,  knew  very  well,  but  has  not  thought  good 
to  tell  us,  who  it  was  that  struck  this  blow, — whether  the  deed  might 
still  have  brought  him  into  trouble,  though  that  appears  an  exceedingly 
improbable  explanation,  or  from  some  other  cause.  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Mark  equally  preserve  silence  on  this  head,  and  are  content  with 
generally  designating  him,  Matthew  as  “ one  of  them  who  were  with 
Jesus  f Mark  as  “ one  of  them  which  stood  by .”  And  it  is  only  from 
St.  John  that  we  learn,  what  perhaps  otherwise  we  might  have  guessed, 
but  could  not  certainly  have  known,  that  it  was  St.  Peter,  who  in  this 
way  sought  to  deliver  his  imperilled  Lord.  He  also  alone  gives  us  the 


THE  HEALING  OF  MALCHTTS’s  EAR.  357 

name  of  the  high  priest’s  servant  who  was  smitten;  “ the  servant's  name 
was  Malchus .”  The  last  may  easily  have  been  unknown  to  the  other 
Evangelists,  though  it  very  naturally  came  within  the  circle  of  St. 
John’s  knowledge,  who  had,  in  some  way  that  is  not  explained  to  us, 
acquaintance  with  the  high  priest,  (John  xviii.  15,)  and  with  the  consti- 
tution of  his  household ; so  accurate  an  acquaintance,  as  that  he  was 
aware  even  of  so  slight  a circumstance  as  that  one  of  those,  who  later 
in  the  night  provoked  Peter  to  his  denial  of  Christ,  was  kinsman  of  him 
whose  ear  Peter  had  cut  off.  (ver.  26.) 

The  whole  circumstance  is  singularly  characteristic;  the  word * 
bearer  for  the  rest  of  the  apostles  proves,  when  occasion  requires,  the 
$worc?-bearer  also — not  indeed  in  this  altogether  of  a different  temper 
from  the  others,  but  showing  himself  prompter  and  more  forward  in  ac- 
tion than  them  all.  While  they  are  saying,  “ Lord,  shall  we  smite  with 
the  sword  perplexed  between  the  natural  instinct  of  defence  and  love 
of  their  perilled  Lord,  on  the  one  side,  and  his  precepts  on  the  other, 
that  they  should  not  resist  the  evil, — he  waits  not  for  the  answer,  but 
impelled  by  the  natural  courage  of  his  heart,*  and  taking  no  heed  . of 
the  odds  against  him,  aims  a blow  at  one,  probably  the  foremost  of  the 
band, — the  first  that  was  daring  to  lay  profane  hands  on  the  sacred  per- 
son of  his  Lord.  This  was  “ a servant  of  the  high  priest's ,”  one  there- 
fore who,  according  to  the  proverb,  “ like  master  like  man,”  may  very 
probably  have  been  especially  forward  in  this  bad  work, — himself  a 
Caiaphas  of  a meaner  stamp.  Peter  was  not  likely  to  strike  with  any 
other  but  a right  good  will,  and  no  doubt  the  blow  was  intended  to 
cleave  down  the  aggressor,  though  by  God’s  good  providence  the  stroke 
was  turned  aside,  and  grazing  the  head  at  which  it  was  aimed,  but  still 
coming  down  with  sheer  descent,  cut  off  the  ear, — the  “ right  earf  as 
St.  Luke  and  St.  John  tell  us, — of  the  assailant  who  thus  hardly  es- 
caped with  his  life. 

The  words  with  which  our  Lord  rebuked  the  untimely  zealf  of  his 


* Josephus  characterizes  the  Galilseans  as  gafigovq. 

•{•  Modern  expositors  are  sometimes  a good  deal  too  hard  upon  this  deed  of  Peter’s. 
Galvin,  for  instance,  who  has  a great  deal  more  in  this  tone : Stulto  suo  zelo  Petrus 
gravem  infamiam  magistro  suo  ejusque  doctrinse  inusserat.  The  wisest  word  upon 
the  matter  (and  on  its  Old  Testament  parallel,  Exod.  ii.  12)  is  to  be  found  in  Augus- 
tine, Con.  Faust.,  1.  22,  c.  70.  He  keeps  as  far  from  this  unmeasured  rebuke  as  from 
the  absurdity  of  the  Romish  expositors,  who  many  of  them  exalt  and  magnify  this  act  . 
as  one  of  a holy  and  righteous  indignation.  Stella,  for  instance  (in  loci),  who  likens 
it  to  the  act  of  Phinehas,  (Num.  xxv.  7,)  by  which  he  won  the 'high  priesthood  for  his 
family  for  ever.  Leo  the  Great,  (Serm.  50,  c.  4,)  had  already  spoken  of  it  in  the  same 
way : Nam  et  beatus  Petrus,  qui  animosiore  constantia  Domino  cohserebat,  et  contra 


358 


THE  HEALING  OF  MALOHUS S EAE. 


disciples  are  differently  given  by  different  Evangelists,  or  rather  they 
have  each  given  a different  portion,  each  one  enough  to  indicate  the 
spirit  in  which  all  was  spoken.  In  St.  Matthew  they  are  related  most 
at  length.  That  moment,  indeed,  of  uttermost  confusion  seems  to  have 
been  no  fitting  one  for  a discourse  so  long  as  that  which  he  records,  not 
to  speak  of  further  words  recorded  by  the  others ; nor  is  it  at  first  easy 
to  see  how  he  could  have  found  opportunity  for  them.  But  if  we  sup- 
pose that  he  gave  this  monition  to  his  disciples,  while  the  healing  of 
Malchus  was  going  forward,  and  while  all  were  attentive  to  and  won- 
dering at  that,  the  difficulty  will  disappear  ; not  to  say  that  his  captors, 
who  may  have  feared  resistance  or  attempts  at  rescue  on  the  part  of 
his  servants,  now  that  they  found  his  words,  to  be  words  prohibiting 
aught  of  the  kind,  may  have  been  most  willing  to  suffer  him  to  speak 
unhindered. 

Our  Lord,  when  he  joins  together  the  taking  the  sword  and  perishing 
with  the  sword,  refers,  no  doubt,  to  the  primal  law,  “ Whoso  sheddeth 
man’s  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed,”  (Gen.  ix.  6,)  as  again 
there  is  probable  allusion  to  these  words  of  his,  Rev.  xiii.  10.  But  the 
application  of  the  words,  “ All  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with 
the  sword”  has  been  sometimes  erroneously  made,  as  though  Christ,  to 
quiet  Peter,  were  saying,  “ There  is  no  need  for  thee  to  assume  the 
task  of  the  punishing  these  violent  men : they  have  taken  the  sword, 
and  by  the  just  judgment  of  God  they  will  perish  by  the  sword.”*  But 
the  warning  against  taking  the  sword  connects  itself  so  closely  with  the 
command,  “ Put  up  again  thy  sword  into  his  place”  and  the  meaning  of 
the  verse  following  (Matt.  xxvi.  53)  is  so  plainly,  “ Thinkest  thou  that 
I need  help  so  poor  as  thine,  when,  instead  of  you,  twelve  weak  trem- 


violentorum  impetus  fervore  sanctse  caritatis  exarserat,  in  servum  principis  sacerdotum 
usus  est  gladio,  et  aurem  viri  ferocius  instantis  abscidit.  Another  finds  in  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  “ Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath ,”  a sanction  for  the  wielding  of  the 
civil  sword  by  the  Church ; for,  as  he  bids  us  note,  Christ  does  not  say,  “Put  away 
thy  sword but  “ Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath” — that  is,  “ Keep  it  in  readiness 
to  draw  forth  again,  when  the  right  occasion  shall  arrive.” — Tertullian,  in  an  opposite 
extreme,  finds  in  these  words  a declaration  of  the  unlawfulness  of  the  military  ser- 
vice under  every  circumstance  for  the  Christian  ( De  Idolol.,  c.  19):  Omnem  militera 
Dominus  in  Petro  exarmando  discinxit. 

* Grotius:  Noli,  Petre  consideratione  ejus  quae  mihi  infertur  injurise  concitatior,  • 
Deo  praeripere  ultionem.  Levia  enim  sunt  vulnera  quae  a te  pati  possunt.  Stat  enim 
rata  sententia,  crudeles  istos  et  sanguinarios,  etiam  te  quiescente,  gravissimas  Deo 
* daturas  pcenas  suo  sanguine.  This  interpretation  is  a good  deal  older  than  Grotius. 

It  is,  I think,  Chrysostom’s,  and  Euthymius  sees  in  these  words  a npocppreta  rr){ 
6ia(j)dopag  rfiv  In eTidovrwv  avrc 5 ’I ovdatuv. 


THE  HEALING  OF  MALCHUS’s  EAE. 


359 


bling  men,  inexpert  in  war,  I might  even  now*  pray  to  my  Father,  and 
he  would  give  me  on  the  moment  twelve  legionsf  of  mighty  angels  on 
my  behalf  — that  all  the  ingenuity  which  Grotius  and  others  use,  and 

it  is  much,  to  recommend  the  other  meaning,  cannot  persuade  to  a re- 
ceiving it. 

The  passage  supplies  a fine  parallel  to  2 Kin.  vi.  17 ; a greater  than 
Elisha  is  here,  and  by  this  word  would  open  the  spiritual  eye  of  his 
troubled  disciple,  and  show  him  the  mount  of  God,  full  of  chariots  and 
horses  of  fire,  armies  of  heaven  which  are  encamping  round  him,  and 
whom  a beck  from  him  would  bring  forth,  to  the  utter  discomfiture  of 
his  enemies.  Possibly  our  blessed  Lord,  even  as  he  thus  spake,  was 
conscious  of  the  temptation  to  claim  this  help  from  God, — the  same 
temptation  as  constituted  the  essence  of  the  Temptation ; but  it  is  one 
no  sooner  offered  him,  than  he  rejects  it  at  once:  for  how  then  should 
that  eternal  purpose,  that  will  of  God,  of  which  Scripture  was  the  out- 
ward' expression,  “ that  thus  it  must  be”  how  should  this  be  fulfilled  % 
(Cf.  Zech.  xiii.  7.) 

In  St.  John  the  same  entire  subordination  of  his  will  to  the  will  of 
the  Father,  which  must  hinder  him  from  claiming  this  unseasonable 
help,  finds  its  utterance  under  another  image ; that  of  a cup  which  he 
needs  must  drink:  “ The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I 
not  drink  it?”  The  image  is  frequent  in  Scripture,  resting  on  the  thought 
of  some  potion  which,  however  bitter,  must  yet  be  drained,  since  such 
is  the  will  of  him  who  has  put  it  into  the  hands.  Besides  Matt.  xx.  22, 


* VA pn.  “ Even  now  at  the  latest  moment,  when  things  are  gone  so  far,  when  I 
am  already  in  the  hands  of  mine  enemies.” — Ka£  TrapaoTrjou  yoi  — et  servitio  meo 
sistet.  (Rom.  vi.  19  ; xii.  1.) 

f The  phrase  is  remarkable,  when  connected  with  the  expression  n2. r/Qog  crpaTtuq 
ovpavlov,  Luke  ii.  13,  and  some  other  similar  language.  Without  falling  in  with  the 
dreams  of  the  Areopagite,  we  may  see  here  intimations  of  a hierarchy  in  heaven. 
Bengel : Angeli  in  suos  numeros  et  ordines  divisi  sunt. 

% Jerome : Non  indigeo  duodecim  apostolorum  auxilio,  qui  possum  habere  duode- 
cim  legiones  angelici  exercitus.  Maldonatus : Mihil  quidem  verosimile  videtur  Chris- 
tum angelos  non  militibus,  sed  discipulis  opponere,  qui  duodecim  erant,  ac  propterea 
duodecim  non  plures  nec  pauciores  legiones  nominasse,  ut  indicaret  posse  se  pro  duo- 
decim hominibus  duodecim  legiones  habere.  The  fact  that  the  number  of  apostles 
who  were  even  tempted  to  draw  sword  in  Christ’s  behalf  was,  by  the  apostasy  of 
Judas,  not  now  twelve,  but  eleven,  need  not  perplex  us,  or  remove  us  from  this  in- 
terpretation. The  Lord  contemplates  them  in  their  ideal  completeness : for  it  was 
no  accident,  but  rested  on  a deep  fitness  that  they  were  twelve,  and  neither  fewer 
nor  more.  He  does  the  same,  saying  in  another  place,  “ Ye  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,”  (Matt.  xix.  28,) — when,  in  like  manner, 
it  was  not  Judas,  but  his  successor  that  should  sit  upon  a throne. 


360 


THE  HEALING  OF  MALCHUS’fc  EAE. 


23 ; xxvi.  39,  where  the  cup  is  the  cup  of  holy  suffering,  there  is  often, 
especially  in  the  Old  Testament,  mention  of  the  cup  of  God’s  anger, 
(Isai.  li.  17,  22;  Ps.  xi.  6;  lxxv.  8;  Jer.  xxv.  15,  17;  xlix.  12;  Lam. 
iv.  21;  Rev.  xiv.  10;  xvi.  19;)  in  every  case  the  cup  having  this  in 
common,  that  it  is  one  from  which  flesh  and  blood  shrinks  back,  which 
a man  would  fain  put  away  from  his  lips  if  he  might,  though  a moral 
necessity  in  the  first  place,  and  a physical  in  the  second,  will  not  suffer 
him  to  do  so. 

And  the  words  that  follow,  “ Suffer  ye  thus  far”  are  to  be  accepted  as 
addressed  still  to  the  disciples : “ Hold  now  ;*  thus  far  ye  have  gone  in 
resistance,  but  let  it  be  no  further ; no  more  of  this.”  The  other  expla- 
nation, which  makes  them  to  have  been  spoken  by  the  Lord  to  those 
into  whose  hands  he  had  come,  that  they  should  bear  with  him  till  he 
had  accomplished  the  cure,  has  nothing  to  recommend  it.  Having  thus 
checked  the  too  forward  zeal  of  his  disciples,  and  now  carrying  out  into 
act  his  own  precept,  “ Love  your  enemies,  ....  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you,”  he  touched  the  ear  of  the  wounded  man,  “ and  healed  him” 
Peter  and  the  rest  meanwhile,  after  this  brief  flash  of  a carnal  courage, 
forsook  their  divine  Master,  and,  leaving  him  in  the  hands  of  his  ene- 
mies, fled, — the  wonder  of  the  crowd  at  that  gracious  work  of  the  Lord, 
or  the  tumult  with  the  darkness  of  the  night,  or  these  both  together,  fa- 
voring their  escape. 


A comma  should  find  place  after  tare. 


XXXIII. 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 

John  xxL  1 — 23. 

It  almost  seemed  as  though  St.  John’s  Gospel  had  found  its  solemn 
completion  in  the  words  (ver.  30,  31)  with  which  the  preceding  chapter 
ended ; so  that  this  chapter  appears,  and  probably  is,  in  the  exactest 
sense  of  the  word,  a postscript , — something  which  the  beloved  apostle, 
after  he  had  made  an  end,  thought  it  important  not  to  leave  untold ; 
which  he  may  have  added,  perhaps,  at  the  request  of  his  disciples,  who 
had  often  heard  delightedly  the  narrative  from  his  own  lips,  and  desired 
that  before  his  departure  he  should  set  it  down,  that  the  Church  might 
be  enriched  with  it  for  ever.* 

* The  question  concerning  the  authenticity  of  this  chapter  was  first  stirred  by 
Grotius ; not  that  he  esteemed  it  altogether  spurious,  but  added,  probably  after  St. 
John’s  death,  by  the  Ephesian  elders,  who  had  often  heard  the  history  from  his  lips. 
Very  unlike  the  other  suspicious  passage  in  St.  John’s  Gospel  (viii.  1 — 11),  there  is  no 
outward  evidence  of  any  kind  against  it.  Every  MS.  possesses  it,  and  there  was 
never  a doubt  expressed  about  it  in  antiquity.  He,  therefore,  and  those  who  have 
followed  him  in  the  same  line,  Clericus,  Semler,  Liicke,  Schott,  {Comm,  de  indole  cap. 
ult.  Ev.  Joh.>  Jen.,  1825,)  can  have  none  but  internal  evidences,  drawn  from  alleged 
differences  in  style,  in  language,  in  manner  of  expression,  from  St.  John’s  confessed 
writings,  on  which  to  build  an  argument, — evidences  frequently  deceptive  and  always 
inconclusive,  but  here  even  weaker  than  usual.  Every  thing  marks  the  hand  of  the 
beloved  disciple.  Hot  merely  do  we  feel  the  tone  of  the  narration  to  be  his ; for  that 
might  be  explained  by  supposing  others  to  be  telling  what  he  had  often  told  them ; but 
single  phrases  and  turns  of  language,  unobserved  by  us  at  first,  and  till  we  have  such 
motives  for  observing  them,  bear  witness  for  him.  It  is  he  alone  who  uses  T L^epiag, 
OuXaeoa  rrjg  T i(3epia8og  (vi.  1,  23),  for  the  lake  of  Galilee ; or  Tvaidta,  as  a word  of 
address  from  the  teacher  to  the  taught  (cf.  ver.  5 with  1 John  ii.  13,  18);  7r idfriVy 
which  occurs  twice  in  this  chapter  (ver.  3,  10),  is  met  with  only  three  times,  save  in 
St.  John’s  writings,  in  the  whole  Hew  Testament ; but  is  so  much  a favorite  with  him, 


362 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


It  was  upon  the  sea  of  Galilee  that  this  appearance  of  Christ  to  his 
disciples,  with  the  miracle  which  accompanied  it,  took  place.  Doubtless 
there  is  a significance  to  be  found  in  the  words,  “ Jesus  showed ,”  or 
manifested  “ himself  ” as  Chrysostom  long  ago  observed, — no  other  than 
this,  that  his  body  after  the  resurrection  was  only  visible  by  a distinct 
act  of  his  will.  From  that  time  the  disciples  did  not,  as  before,  see 
J esus,  but  Jesus  appeared  unto  or  ivas  seen  by  them.  It  is  not  for  nothing 
that  the  language  is  changed,  or  that  in  language  of  this  kind  all  his 
appearances  after  the  resurrection  are  related.  (Luke  xxiv.  34 ; Acts 
xiii.  31 ; 1 Cor.  xv.  5,  6,  7,  8.*)  It  is  the  same  with  angels,  and  all 
heavenly  manifestations : men  do  not  see  them,  as  though  it  lay  in  their 
will  to  do  so  or  not ; such  language  would  be  inappropriate : but  they 
appear  to  men;  (Judg.  vi.  12;  xiii.  3,  10,  21;  Matt.  xvii.  3;  Luke  i. 
11;  xxii.  43;  Acts  ii.  3 ; vii.  2;  xvi.  9;  xxvi.  16;)  are  only  visible  to 
those  for  whose  sakes  they  are  vouchsafed,  and  to  whom  they  are  willing 
to  show  themselves. -f-  Those  to  whom  this  manifestation  was  vouchsafed 
were  Simon  Peter  and  Thomas  and  Nathanael,  James  and  John,  and 
two  other  disciples  that  are  not  named.  It  makes  something  for  the 
current  opinion  that  the  Nathanael  of  St.  John,  is  the  Bartholomew  of 
the  other  Evangelists,  thus  to  find  him  named  not  after,  but  in  the  midst 
of,  some  of  the  very  chiefest  apostles.  Who  were  the  two  unnamed 
disciples  cannot,  of  course,  be  known.  They  too  were  not  improbably 

that  besides  these,  there  are  six  instances  of  its  use  in  his  Gospel  alone,  (vii.  30,  32, 
44 ; viii.  20;  x.  39  ; xi.  57,)  to  which  may  be  added  Rev.  xix.  20.  Again,  Pknvu  (ver. 
6,  11)  is  one  of  his  words  (vi.  44;  xii.  32;  xviii.  20),  being  found  else  but  once. 
The  double  upr/v  at  the  beginning  of  a sentence  (ver.  18),  is  exclusively  St.  John’s, 
occurring  twenty-five  times  in  his  Gospel,  but  never  elsewhere.  The  appellation  o£ 
Thomas,  Qupug.  6 heyopevog  Aidv/uo?  (ver.  21,  cf.  xi.  16;  xx.  24),  is  also  exclusively 
his.  Compare,  too,  ver.  19  with  xii.  23  and  xviii.  32;  the  use  also  of  opo'uog  (ver. 
13),  with  the  parallel  use  at  vi.  11.  ’Oi pdpcov,  too,  and  nuTuv  devrepov  (ver.  16),  be- 
long only  to  him  (iv.  54) : and  the  narrator  interposing  words  of  his  own,  as  a com- 
ment on  and  explanation  of  the  Lord’s  words  (ver.  19),  is  quite  after  the  favorite 
manner  of  St.  John.  (ii.  21 ; vi.  6 ; vii.  39.)  And  of  these  peculiarities  many  more 
might  be  adduced. 

* ’E (pavipoGEv  kavrov  (see  John  ii.  11)  is  here  = wcpdi]  in  the  passages  quoted 
above,  which  might  easily  be  multiplied. 

f Thus  Ambrose  on  the  appearing  of  the  angel  to  Zacharias  {Exp.  in  Luc.,  1.  1, 
c.  24) : Benei  apparuisse  dicitur  ei,  qui  eum  repente  conspexit.  Et  hoc  specialiter  aut 
de  Angelis  aut  de  Deo  Scriptura  divina  tenere  consuevit;  ut  quod  non  potest  presvi- 
deri,  apparere  dicatur  ....  Non  enim  similiter  sensibilia  videntur,  et  is  in  cujus  vo- 
luntate  situm  est  videri,  et  cujus  natune  est  non  videri,  voluntatis  videri.  Nam  si 
non  vult,  non  videtur;  si  vult,  videtur.  These  are  Chrysostom’s  words : ’Ev  tu>  ehrelv 
Havepuaev  tavrov , tovto  dr/lot,  on  ei  prj  r/6e’/ \e,  sal  avrog  kavrov  did  avyKardfiaciv 
tyavepaoev,  oi<x  updro,  tov  auparog  ovtoc  aQduprov. 


DKAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


363 


apostles,  disciples  in  the  most  eminent  sense  of  the  word  ;*  Lightfoot 
supposes  that  they  were  Andrew  and  Philip. 

Peter’s  declaration  that  he  will  go  to  fish,  is  not,  as  has  been 
strangely  supposed,  a declaration  that  he  has  lost  his  hope  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  renounced  his  apostleship,  and  therefore  returns  to  his  old 
occupations,  there  being  no  nobler  work  for  him  in  store.  But  it  was 
quite  in  the  wise  manner  of  the  Jewish  teachers,  to  have  a manual  trade 
that  they  might  fall  back  on  in  the  time  of  need,  and  thus  not  be  depen- 
dent on  their  scholars  for  support;  what  good  service  Paul’s  skill  in 
making  tents  did  him  is  well  known ; probably  also  they  found  it  health- 
ful to  their  own  minds,  to  have  some  outward  occupation  for  which  to 
exchange  at  times  their  spiritual  employments.  The  words  themselves, 
“ I go  a fishing are  not  merely  a declaration  of  his  intention,  but  a 
summons  to  his  friends  to  accompany  him,  if  they  are  so  minded ; 
whereupon  they  declare  their  readiness;  “ We  also  go  with  thee.” 
During  all  the  night,  though  that  is  ever  accounted  the  opportunest  time 
for  fishing,  they  caught  nothing.  When  at  early  dawn  the  risen  Lord 
stood  upon  the  shore,  they  did  not  at  first  recognize  him.  Nor  even 
when  he  addressed  them  as  “ Children did  they  know  that  it  was  he, — 
the  mighty  change  which  had  passed  upon  him  at  his  resurrection  had  so 
left  him  at  once  the  same  and  yet  another.  (Cf.  John  xx.  14,  15.) 
When  they  acknowledged  in  reply  to  his  question,  “ Have  ye  any  meat  ?” 
the  ill  success  which  had  attended  their  labors  of  the  night,  he  bade  them 
cast  in  their  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  ship,  promising  that  it  should  not 
be  in  vain.  And  they,  though  taking  it  even  now  but  for  the  counsel  of 
a kind  and,  it  might  be,  a skilful  stranger,  were  obedient  to  his  word : 
“ They  cast  therefore , and  now  they  were  not  able  to  draw  it  for  the  multi- 
tude of  fishes.” 

As  before,  the  Lord  had  made  himself  known  in  his  higher  char- 
acter through  a marvellous  success  of  the  like  kind,  so  does  he  now ; * 
yet  it  is  not  Peter  on  the  present  occasion,  but  John,  that  first  recognizes 
in  whose  presence  they  are.  Thereupon  he  “ saith  unto  Peter , It  is  the 
Lord.”  Both  the  apostles  come  wonderfully  out  in  their  proper  char- 
acters : he  of  the  eagle  eye  first  detects  the  presence  of  the  Beloved, 
and  then  Peter,  the  foremost  ever  in  act,  as  John  is  profoundest  in  specu- 
lation, unable  to  wait  till  the  ship  should  be  brought  to  land,  throws 
himself  into  the  sea  that  he  may  find  himself  the  sooner  at  the  feet  of 
his  Lord.f  He  was  before  “ naked,”  stripped,  that  is,  for  labor,  wear- 

* St.  John  does  not  know  the  word  uTroaroXog  as  a term  for  the  twelve.  He 
uses  it  but  once,  (xiii.  16,)  and  then  generally  for  one  that  is  outsent. 

f Ohrysostom : 'Qf  d£  irnyvocav  avrdv,  n akw  rd  idivyaTa  tQv  oUeluv  ImdeiK- 


364 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


ing  only  the  tunic,  or  garment  close  to  the  skin,  and  haying  put  off  his 
upper  and  superfluous  garments  :*  for  the  word  “ naked ” means  no  more; 
and  is  continually  used  in  this  sense ; hut  now  he  girded  himself  with 
his  fisher’s  coat,f  as  counting  it  unseemly  to  appear  without  it  in  the 
presence  of  his  Lord.  Some  have  supposed  that  he  walked  on  the  sea ; 
but  we  have  no  warrant  to  multiply  miracles,  and  the  words,  “ cast  him- 
self into  the  seaf  do  not  look  like  this.  Rather,  he  swam  and  waded 
to  the  shore.  J The  distance  was  not  more  than  about  “ two  hundred 
cubits that  is,  about  one  hundred  yards.  The  other  disciples  followed 

vvvtcu  rpoToav  ol  paOrjTal  ILerpog  nai  ’ladvvjjg’  6 [lev  yap  Oepfiorepog,  6 be  v'tpTjXorepog 
7)V’  teal  6 per  o^vrepog  tjv,  6 be  biopariKurepog. 

* The  word  is  of  continual  use  in  this  sense.  Thus  Yirgil  gives  this  advice  to 
the  ploughman,  Nudas  ara,  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  18,)  which  he  has  borrowed  from  Hesiod, 
who  will  have  him  yvfivov  aneipeiv,  yvfivov  rb  (3 o over-  So,  too,  Cincinnatus  was 
found  “ naked”  at  the  plough,  when  he  was  called  to  be  Dictator,  and  sent  for  his 
toga  that  he  might  present  himself  before  the  Senate  (Pliny,  H.  N.,  1.  18,  c.  4);  and 
Plutarch  says  of  Phocion,  that,  in  the  country  and  with  the  army,  he  went  always 
without  sandals  and  “ naked”  (dvvTebbrjTog  del  icai  yv/ivog  kftddifrv) : and  Grotius 
quotes  from  Eusebius  a yet  apter  passage  than  any  of  these,  in  which  one  says,  rjfiriv 
yvfivog  ev  r<p  "kivbp  eod^pdre.  The  Athenian  jest  that  the  Spartans  showed  to  for- 
eigners their  virgins  naked  is  to  be  taken  with  these  limitations — with  only  the 
chiton  or  himation.  (Mueller’s  Dorians,  1.  4,  c.  2,  § 3.)  Cf.  1 Sam.  xix.  24 ; Isai. 
xx.  3 ; at  the  last  of  which  passages  the  Deist  Tindal,  in  his  ignorance,  scoffs,  as 
though  God  had  commanded  an  indecency,  but  which  both  are  to  be  explained  in 
the  same  manner.  (See  Deyling’s  Obss.  Sac.,  v.  4,  p.  888,  seq.  and  the  Diet,  of  Gr. 
and  Rom.  Antt.,  s.  v.  Nudus.) 

\ This  seems  to  me  the  meaning ; in  Deyling’s  words  ( Obss.  Sac.,  v.  4.  p.  890) : 
’ ETzevdvrr/v  ad  Christum  iturus  sibi  circumjiciebat,  ne  minus  honestus  et  modestus  in 
conspectum  Domini  veniret.  Others,  however,  as  Euthymius,  explain  the  passage 
differently — that  this  hrevbvTTjg  was  the  only  garment  which  he  had  on ; but  as  re- 
garded even  that,  he  was  a&orog,  and  so,  in  a manner,  yvpvog.  But  going  to  the 
Lord,  he  girt  it  up ; whether  for  comeliness,  or  that  it  might  not,  being  left  loose, 
hinder  him  in  swimming.  Thus  Lampe.  The  matter  would  be  clear,  if  we  could 
know  certainly  what  the  eTvevbvrr/g  was.  Yet  the  etymology  plainly  points  out  that 
it  is  not  the  under  garment  or  vest,  worn  close  to  the  skin,  which  is  rather  vTzobvTrjg 
(see  Passow,  s.  vv.),  but  rather  that  worn  over  all,  as  (1  Sam.  xviii.  4)  the  robe  which 
Jonathan  gives  to  David  is  called  tov  lirevSvTTjv  rov  knavu  (LXX.)  This  is  certainly 
the  simplest  and  preferable  view  of  the  words ; that  Peter,  being  stripped  before, 
now  hastily  threw  his  upper  garment  over  him,  which  yet  he  girt  up,  that  it  might 
not  form  an  impediment  in  swimming. 

\ Ambrose : Periculoso  compendio  religiosum  maturavit  obsequium. 

§ Ovid’s  advice  to  the  fisher  is  to  keep  this  moderate  distance  : 

Nec  tamen  in  medias  pelagi  te  pergere  sedes 
Admoneam,  vastique  mails  tentare  profundum. 
mter  utrumque  loci  melius  moderabere  finem,  &c. 


DEAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


365 


more  slowly,  for  they  were  encumbered  with  the  net  and  its  weight  of 
fishes,  which  they  drew  with  them  to  land.  There  they  find  a fire  kin- 
dled, with  fish  laid  on  it,  and  bread.  They  are  bidden  to  bring  also 
of  their  fish,  and  to  unite  them  for  the  meal  with  those  already  prepar- 
ing.* Peter,  again  the  foremost,  drew  up  the  net,  which  was  fastened, 
no  doubt,  to  the  ship,  on  the  beach.  The  very  number  of  the  fish  it 
contained  “ an  hundred  and  fifty  and  three  f is  mentioned,  with  also  the 
remarkable  circumstance,  that  although  they  were  so  many  and  so  large, 
— “ great  fishes ,” — yet,  differently  from  that  former  occasion,  (Luke  v. 
<$,)  the  net  was  not  broken  by  their  weight,  or  by  their  efforts  to  escape. 

Now  we  can  scarcely  believe  that  all  this  happened,  or  that  it  was 
all  recorded  in  its  minuteness  and  its  details,  without  some  meaning  more 
than  lies  upon,  the  surface ; indeed,  the  whole  is  told  with  an  emphasis 
which  will  hardly  allow  us  to  rest  content  with  such  a supposition. 
Rather  here,  as  we  have  seen  so  often  before,  Christ  is  speaking  to  us 
by  his  acts.  Nor  can  I doubt  that  Augustine  has  rightly  attributed  in 
more  places  than  one  a symbolical  meaning  to  this  miracle  ;f  and  that, 
whether  or  not  we  may  consent  to  every  detail  of  his  interpretation, 
yet  in  the  outline  and  main  features  he  has  given  the  true  one.  He 
brings  this  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  im  comparison  with  the  other 
which  fell  out  before  the  resurrection,  and  sees  in  that  first,  the  figure 
of  the  Church  as  it  now  is,  and  as  it  now  gathers  its  members  from  the 
world ; in  this  the  figure  of  the  Church  as  it  shall  be  after  the  resur- 
rection, with  the  great  incoming,  the  great  sea-harvest  of  souls,  which 
then  shall  find  place,  j Then  on  that  first  occasion  the  apostles  were 

* The  abundance  and  the  excellency  of  the  fish  in  this  lake  has  been  often  re- 
marked. Thus  Robinson  ( Biblical  Researches , v.  2,  p.  261):  “The  lake  is  full  of 
fishes  of  various  kinds,”  and  he  instances  sturgeon,  chub,  and  bream,  adding,  “We 
had  no  difficulty  in  procuring  an  abundant  supply  for  our  evening  and  morning 
meal,  and  found  them  delicate  and  well  flavored.” 

f Augustine  ( Serm . 248,  c.  1):  Nunquam  hoc  Dominus  juberet,  nisi  aliquid 
significare  vellet,  quod  nobis  nosse  expediret.  Quid  ergo  pro  magno  potuit  ad 
Jesum  Christum  pertinere,  si  pisces  caperentur  aut  si  non  caperentur  ? Sed  ilia 
piscatio,  nostra  erat  significatio. 

\ Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract . 122) : Sicut  hoc  loco  qualiter  in  seculi  fine 
futura  sit  [Ecclesia],  ita  Dominus  alia  piscatione  significavit  Ecclesiam  qualiter  nunc 
sit.  Quod  autem  illud  fecit  in  initio  praedicationis  suae,  hoc  vero  post  resurrectionem 
suam,  hinc  ostendit  illam  capturam  piscium,  bonos  et  malos  significare,  quos  nunc 
habet  Ecclesia  ; istam  verb  tantummodo  bonos  quos  habebit  in  aeternum,  completa  in 
fine  hujus  seculi  resurrectione  mortuorum.  Denique  ibi  Jesus,  non  sicut  hie  in  littore 
stabat,  quando  jussit  pisces  capi,  sed  ascendens  in  unam  navim  ....  dixit  ad  Simo- 
nem,  Due  in  altum,  et  laxate  retia  vestra  in  capturam  ....  Ibi  retia  non  mittuntur 
in  dexteram,  ne  solos  significent  bonos,  nec  in  sinistram,  ne  solos  malos ; sed  indiffe- 


366 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


not  particularly  bidden  to  cast  the  net  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left ; 
for,  had  he  said  to  the  right,  it  would  have  implied  that  none  should  be 
taken  but  the  good, — if  to  the  left,  that  only  the  bad ; while  yet  in  the 
present  mixed  condition  of  the  Church,  both  bad  and  good  are  inclosed 
in  the  nets  ; but  now  he  says  “ Cast  the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  ship,” 
implying  that  now  all  who  should  be  taken  should  be  good.*  Then  the 
nets  were  broken  with  the  multitude  of  fishes,  so  that  all  were  not 
secured  which  once  were  within  them ; — and  what  are  the  schisms  and 
divisions  of  the  present  condition  of  the  Church,  but  rents  and  holes 
through  which  numbers,  that  impatiently  bear  to  be  restrained  in  the 
net,  break  away  from  it  h but  now,  in  the  end  of  time,  “for  all  there 
were  so  many , yet  was  not  the  net  broken”  Then  the  fish  were  brought 
into  the  ship,  which  yet  was  itself  still  on  the  unquiet  sea,  even 
as  it  is  thus  that  men  in  the  present  time  who  are  taken  for  Christ,  are 
brought  into  the  Church,  still  itself  exposed  to  the  world’s  tempests : 
but  now  the  nets  are  drawn  up  to  land,  to  the  safe  and  quiet  shore  of 
eternity. f Then  the  ships  were  well  nigh  sunken  with  their  burden,  for 
so  is  it  with  the  ship  of  the  Church, — encumbered  with  evil  livers  till  it 
well  nigh  makes  shipwreck  altogether:  but  nothing  of  a like  kind  is 
mentioned  here.J  There  it  is  merely  mentioned  that  a great  multitude 

renter,  Laxate,  inquit,  retia  vestra  in  capturam,  ut  permixtos  intelligamus  bonos  et 
malos : hie  autem  inquit,  Mittite  in  dextram  navigii  rete,  ut  significaret  eos  qui  sta- 
bant  ad  dexteram,  solos  bonos.  Ibi  rete  propter  significanda  schismata  rumpebatur : 
hie  vero,  quoniam  tunc  jam  in  ilia  sumraa  pace  sanctorum  nulla  erunt  schismata,  per- 
tinuit  ad  Evangelistam  dicer  e,  Et  cum  tanti  essent,  id  est,  tam  magni,  non  est  scissum 
rete ; tanquam  illud  respiceret  ubi  scissum  est,  et  in  illius  mali  comparatione  com- 
mendaret  hoc  bonum.  Cf.  Serm.  248 — 252  ; and  also  the  Brev.  Coll,  con  Donat.,  1.  3 ; 
Quoest  88,  qu.  8 ; and  Gregory  the  Great,  (Horn,  in  Evang.  24,)  who  altogether  fol- 
lows the  exposition  of  Augustine,  making  indeed  far  more  of  Peter’s  part,  especially 
of  his  bringing  of  the  net  to  land,  which  is  easily  to  be  accounted  for,  the  idea  of  the 
Papacy  having  in  his  time  developed  itself  further. 

* This,  because  the  right  hand  is  ever  the  hand  of  value;  thus,  the  sheep  are 
placed  at  the  right  hand.  (Matt.  xxv.  33.)  Even  the  right  eye,  if  needs  is,  shall  be 
plucked  out, — the  right  hand  cut  off.  (Matt.  v.  29,  30.)  Again,  it  is  threatened  that 
even  the  right  eye  of  the  idol  shepherd,  the  eye  of  spiritual  understanding,  shall  be 
utterly  darkened.  (Zech.  xi.  lY.)  Ezekiel  lies  on  his  left  side  for  Israel,  but  on  his 
right  for  Judah,  (Ezek.  iv.  4,  6 ;)  and  this  because  Judah  with  all  its  sins  was  not  yet 
an  apostate  Church.  (Hos.  xi.  12.)  Cf.  Gen  xlviii.  11 ; 1 Kin.  ii.  19 ; Acts  vii.  55. 

f Augustine  (Serm.  251,  c.  3):  In  ilia  piscatione  non  ad  littus  adtracta  sunt  retia: 
sed  ipsi  pisces  qui  capti  sunt,  in  naviculas  fusi  sunt.  Hie  aittem  traxerunt  ad  littus. 
Spera  finem  seculi.  Grotius  has  a glimpse  of  the  same  thought,  when  upon  the  words, 
“Jesus  stood  on  the  shore,”  (ver.  4,)  he  adds : Significans  se  per  Resurrectionem  jam 
esse  in  vado,  ipsos  in  salo  versari.  Cf.  Gregory  the  Great,  Horn.  24  in  Evang. 

\ Augustine  (Serm.  249) : Implentur  navigia  duo  propter  populos  duos  de  circum- 


DEAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


367 

were  inclosed,  but  here  a definite  number,  even  as  the  number  of  the 
elect  is  fixed  and  pre-ordained  ;*  and  there,  no  doubt,  small  and  great 
fishes,  for  nothing  to  the  contrary  is  said;  but  here  they  are  all  “great” 
for  so  shall  they  all  be  that  belong  to  that  kingdom,  being  equal  to  the 
angels,  f 

That  which  follows  is  obscure,  and  without  the  key  which  the  sym- 
bolical explanation  supplies,  would  be  obscurer  yet.  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  meal  which  they  found  ready  prepared  for  them  on  the  shore, 
with  the  Lord’s  invitation  that  they  should  come  and  share  it  % It  could 
not  be  needful  for  him  with  his  risen  body,  and  as  little  for  them,  whose 
dwellings  were  near  at  hand.  But  we  must  continue  to  see  an  under- 
meaning, and  a rich  and  deep  one,  in  all  this.  As  that  large  capture  of 
fish  was  to  them  the  pledge  and  promise  of  a labor  that  should  not  bo 
in  vain,J  so  the  meal,  when  the  labor  was  done,  a meal  of  the  Lord’s 
own  preparing,  and  upon  the  shore , was  the  symbol  of  the  great  festival 
in  heaven  with  which,  after  their  earthly  toil  was  over,  he  would  refresh 
his  servants,  when  he  should  cause  them  to  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
and  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom.  And  as  they  were  bidden  to  bring 


cisione  et  praeputio : et  sic  implentur,  ut  premantur  et  poene  mergantur.  Hoc  quod 
significat  gemendmn  est.  Turba  turbavit  Ecclesiam.  Quam  magnum  numerum 
fecerunt  male  viventes,  prementes  et  gementes  [pcene  mergentes  ?].  Sed  propter 
pisces  bonos  non  sunt  mersa  navigia. 

* Augustine  and  others  have  very  laborious  calculations  to  show  why  this  num- 
ber of  fishes  was  exactly  one  hundred  and  fifty  and  three,  and  the  mystery  that  is 
here.  But  the  significance  is  not  in  its  being  that  particular  number,  for  the  rgimber 
seems  chosen  to  exclude  that,  in  this  unlike  the  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand 
(12  X 12)  of  the  Apocalypse,  (vii.  4;)  but  in  its  being  a fixed  and  definite  number 
at  all : just  as 'in  Ezekiel’s  temple,  (ch.  40,  seq.,)  each  measurement  is  not,  and  cannot 
be  made,  significant,  but  that  it  is  all  by  measurement  is  most  significant, — telling 
us,  that  here,  in  the  rearing  of  the  spiritual  temple,  no  caprice  or  wilfulness  of  men 
is  to  find  room,  but  that  all  is  laid  down  according  to  a pre-ordained  purpose  and 
will  of  God.  To  number,  as  to  measure  and  to  weigh,  is  a Divine  attribute.  Com- 
pare Job  xxviii.  25  ; xxxviii.  5 ; Isai.  xl.  12  ; and  the  noble  debate  in  St.  Augustine. 
{Be  Lib.  Arbit.,  1.  2,  c.  11 — 16,)  on  all  the  works  of  wisdom  being  by  number. 

f Augustine  ( Serm . 248,  c.  3) : Quis  est  enim  ibi  tunc  parvus,  quando  erunt  aequales 
Angelis  Dei  ? 

% Maldonatus : Missunis  erat  paulo  post  Christus  discipulos  suos  in  omnem  terra- 
rum  orbem,  quasi  in  altum  ac  latum  mare,  ut  homines  piscarentur.  Poterant  insci- 
tiam,  poterant  imbecillitatem  suam  excusare,  se  homines  esse  litterarum  rudes,  id  est, 
piscandi  imperitos,  paucos  prseterea  et  infirmos,  qui  posse  se  tot  tamque  grandes 
pisces  capere,  tot  oratores,  tot  tantosque  philosophos  irretire  et  a sententia  dimovere  ? 
Yoluit  ergo  Christus  exemplo  artis  propriae  docere  id  ipsos  suis  viribus  suaque  industria 
facere  nullo  modo  posse,  idque  significat  quod  totam  laborantes  noctem  nihil  ceperant : 
iosius  vero  ope  atque  auxilio  facillim&  facturos. 


368 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


of  their  fish  to  that  meal,  so  should  the  souls  which  they  had  taken  for 
life  he  their  crown  and  rejoicing  in  that  day,  should  help  and  contribute 
to  their  gladness  then.* 

When  the  Evangelist  tells  us  that  at  this  meal  “ none  of  the  disciples 
durst  ask  him , Who  art  thou?  knowing  that  it  was  the  Lord  this  again 
is  difficult ; for  if  they  knew,  where  was  even  the  temptation  to  make 
this  inquiry  1 and  yet  it  seems  on  the  surface  of  the  narration  that  they 
were  tempted  to  ask  such  a question,  and  were  only  hindered  by  the 
solemn  fear  and  awe  which  was  shed  on  them  by  his  presence.  But  the 
right  meaning  of  the  words,  no  doubt,  is  that  none  of  them  dared  to  show 
so  much  of  unbelief  and  uncertainty  as  would  have  been  involved  in 
the  question  “ Who  art  thou  ?”  There  was  shed  over  them  such  a mys- 
terious awe,  such  a sense  of  the  presence  of  their  beloved  Master,  wit- 
nessing for  itself  in  the  inmost  depths  of  their  spirits,  that,  unusual  and 
unlike  as  was  his  outward  appearance  to  that  whereunto  their  eyes  were 
accustomed,  yet  none  of  them  durst  ask  for  a clearer  evidence  that  it 
was  he,  even  though  it  would  have  been  a satisfaction  to  them  to  hear 
from  his  own  lips  that  it  was  indeed  himself  and  no  other.f 

The  t most  interesting  conversation  which  follows  hangs  too  closely 
upon  this  miracle  to  be  omitted ; in  fact,  as  appears  almost  universally 
the  case  with  St.  John,  the  miracle  is  not  recorded  so  much  for  its  own 
sake,  as  for  the  sake  of  that  which  grows  out  of  it.  Here,  after  the 
Lord  has  opened  the  eyes  of  his  apostles  to  the  greatness  of  their  future 
work,  and  given  to  them  in  type  a prophetic  glimpse  both  of  their  suc- 
cessful labor  and  their  abundant  reward,  he  now  declares  to  them  the 
one  condition  both  of  accomplishing  this  work,  and  inheriting  this  reward. 
Love  to  Christ,  and  the  unreserved  yielding  up  of  self  to.  God — these 
were  the  sole  conditions,  and  all  which  follows  is  to  teach  this : so  that 
the  two  portions  of  the  chapter  are  intimately  connected,  and  together 

* Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  123) : Piscis  assus,  Christus  est  passus.  Ipse  est 
et  panis  qui  de  coelo  descendit.  Hinc  incorporatur  Ecclesia  ad  participandam  beati- 
tudinem  sempiternam.  Ammonius : To,  Aevte  dpioTEvoarE,  alviypa  6 loyog,  on 
fZErd  rovg  rcovovg  Siadct-ETai  rovg  dytovg  dvairavoig  nal  rpv<pi}  nal  drroXavaig.  Gregory 
the  Great  (Horn.  24  in  Evang.)  notes  how  the  number  who  here  feast  with  the  Lord 
are  seven,  the  number  of  perfection  and  completion. 

f Augustine  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  123) : Si  ergo  sciebant,  quid  opus  erat  ut  interro- 
garent  ? Si  autem  non  opus  erat,  quare  dictum  est,  non  audebant ; quasi  opus  esset, 
sed  timore  aliquo  non  auderent  ? Sensus  ergo  hie  est : Tanta  erat  evidentia  veritatis, 
qui  Jesus  illis  discipulis  apparebat,  ut  eorum  non  solum  negare,  sed  nec  dubitare 
quidem  ullus  auderet : quoniam  si  quisquam  dubitaret,  utique  interrogare  deberet. 
Sic  ergo  dictum  est,  Nemo  audebat  eum  interrogare,  Tu  quis  es : ac  si  diceretur,  Nemo 
audebat  dubitare  quod  ipse  esset.  Cf.  Chrysostom’s  striking  words  In  Joh.,  Horn.  87. 


DEAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


369 


form  a complete  whole.  When  the  meal  was  ended,  u Jesus  said  unto 
Simon  Peter , Simon , son  of  Jonas , loves t thou  me  more  than  these  f ” with 
an  evident  allusion  to  Peter’s  boasting  speech,  u Though  all  men  shall  be 
offended  because  of  thee,  yet  will  I never  be  offended,”  (Matt.  xxvi.  33,) 
as  is  proved  by  Peter’s  answer,  wherein  appealing  to  the  Lord,  the 
Searcher  of  hearts,  he  affirms  that  indeed  he  loves  him,  but  does  not  now 
cast  any  slight  by  comparison  on  the  love  of  his  fellow-disciples.*  The 
main  object  of  the  Lord  in  his  rejoinder,  “ Feed  my  sheep f 11  Feed  my 
lambs  f is  not  to  say,  “ Show  then  thy  love  in  act,”  but  rather,  “ I restore 
to  thee  thy  apostolic  function ; this  grace  is  thine,  that  thou  shalt  yet  be 
a chief  shepherd  of  my  flock.”f  It  implies,  therefore,  the  fullest  for- 
giveness of  the  past,  since  none  but  the  forgiven  could  rightly  declare 
the  forgiveness  of  God.  The  question,  “ Lovest  thou  me  ?n J is  thrice 
repeated,  that  by  three  solemn  affirmations  the  apostle  may  efface  his 
three  denials  of  his  Lord.§  At  last,  upon  the  third  repetition  of  the 


* Augustine  ( Serm . 147,  c.  2) : Hon  potuit  dicere  nisi,  Amo  te : non  ausus  est 
dicer e,  plus  his.  Holuit  iterum  esse  mendax.  Suffecerat  ei  testimonium  perhibere 
cordi  suo : non  debuit  esse  judex  cordis  alieni. 

f The  other,  doubtless,  is  the  commonest  view  of  the  connection  of  the  words. 
Thus  Augustine  takes  it  a hundred  times,  as  Serm.  146,  c.  1 : Tamquam  ei  diceret, 
Amas  me  ? In  hoc  ostende  quia  amas  me,  Pasce  oves  meas.  But  the  view  expressed 
in  the  text  is  that  of  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Eutliymius.  Thus,  too,  Calvin : Hunc  illi  tarn 
libertas  docendi  quam  auctoritas  restituitur,  quarum  utramque  amiserat  sua  culpa. 

j;  ’Kyairav  and  §ikelv  are  here  so  interchangeably  used,  that  the  Lord  on  his  first 
and  second  putting  of  the  question  to  Peter  says,  d-yanac;  ye;  on  the  third,  <pi?ielg, 
while  Peter  every  time  answers  with  the  latter  word,  tyilti  ae.  If  there  be  any 
significance  in  the  variation,  our  version  has  lost  it,  though  the  Latin  has  at  least 
marked  it  by  using  for  the  first,  diligo  ; for  the  second,  amo, — words  which  Cicero 
more  than  once  distinguishes,  making  the  last  to  imply  more  of  affection  than  the 
first.  But  there  hardly  is  such  here  (see  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  14,  c.  7) ; not 
that  ayantiv  and  tyilelv  have  not  each  of  them  certain  meanings,  which  the  other  will 
not  admit,  or  that  there  are  not  places  where  the  one  could  by  no  means  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  other ; yet  here  they  appear  indifferently  used.  (See  Pittman’s  Syn- 
onyms, c.  4.)  Still  more  confidently  one  may  affirm  the  fiooiceiv  and  noiyavveiv  of 
these  verses  to  be  entire  synonyms. 

§ Augustine  {In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract.  123) ; Redditur  negationi  trinse  trina  confessio  • 
ne  minus  amori  lingua  serviat  quam  timori : et  plus  vocis  elicuisse  videatur  mors 
imminens,  quam  vita  prassens.  Enarr.  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  13  : Donee  trina  voce  amor  is 
solveret  trinam  vocem  negationis.  Serm.  285 : Odit  Deus  prsesumtores  de  viribus 
suis  ; et  tumorem  istum  in  eis,  quos  diligit,  tamquam  medicus  secat.  Secando  quidem 
infert  dolorem ; sed  firmat  postea  sanitatem.  Itaque  resurgens  Dominus  commendat 
Petro  oves  suas  illi  negatori ; sed  negatori  quia  praesumtori,  postea  pastori  quia  ama- 
tori.  Ham  quare  ter  interrogat  amantem,  nisi  ut  compungat  ter  negantem  ? Cf 
Enarr.  2a  in  Ps.  xc.  12.  So  Ammonius : Aid  rpiuv  t&v  eporijaeuv  Kal  KaraOeoeuv 

47 


370 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


question,  Peter  was  saddened,  as  though  the  Lord  doubted  his  word  5 ahd 
with  yet  more  emphasis  than  before,  appeals  to  his  Saviour  in  his  all- 
knowing and  all-searching  character,  whether  it  was  not  true  that  indeed 
he  loved  him : “ Lord , thou  Jcnowest  all  things , thou  hnowest  that  I love 
thee.”* 

There  does  not  seem  any  thing  in  the  distinction  which  some  have 
made  between  the  two  commands,  “ Feed  r^y  lambs”  and  “ Feed  my 
sheep”  as  though  the  first  were  the  more  imperfect  Christians,  the  little 
children  in  Christ ; the  other  the  more  advanced,  the  grown  men.f  And 
still  more  groundless  and  trifling  is  the  interpretation  made  in  the  inter- 
ests of  Rome,  as  though  the  “ lambs ” are  the  laity,  and  the  “ sheep”  'the 
clergy ; and  that  here  to  Peter,  and  in  him  to  the  Roman  pontiffs,  was 
given  dominion  over  both.  The  commission  should  at  least  have  run, 
Feed  my  sheep,  Feed  my  shepherds,  if  any  conclusions  of  the  kind  were 
to  be  drawn  from  it,  though  an  infinite  deal  would  even  then  have 
remained  to  be  proved. J 

But  “ Feed  my  sheep”  is  not  all.  This  life  of  labor  is  to  be 
crowned  with  a death  of  painfulness ; such  is  the  way,  with  its  narrow 
and  strait  gate,  which  even  for  a Peter  is  the  only  one  which  will  lead 
to  eternal  life.  The  Lord  would  show  him  beforehand  what  great 
things  he  must  suffer  for  his  sake.  For  this  is  often  his  manner  with 
his  elect  servants,  with  an  Ezekiel,  (iii.  25,)  with  a Paul,  (Acts  xxi.  11,) 
and  now  with  a Peter.  “ When  thou  wast  young , thou  girdest  thyself, 
and  walkedst  whither  thou  wouldest,  but  when  thou  shall  be  old,  thou  shalt 
stretch  forth  thy  hands , and  another  shall  gird  thee , and  carry  thee  whither 
thou  wouldest  not.”  There  cannot,  I think,  be  a doubt  that  there  is 
allusion  here  to  the  crucifixion  of  Peter,  since  St.  John  himself  declared 
that  Jesus  spake  thus,  “ signifying  by  what  death  he  should  glorify  God 

kZaletyei  rdg  rpetg  tyuvdg  Trig  dpvrjaeug,  /cat  bed  Xoyuv  krz avopOol  rd  kv  Xoyoig  yevo/ueva 
’KTatoyaTa.  Not  otherwise  the  Church  hymn, — 

Ter  confessus  ter  negatum, 

Gregem  pascis  ter  donatum, 

Vita,  verbo,  precibus. 

* Augustine  ( Berm . 253,  c.  1) : Contristatus  est  Petrus.  Quid  contristaris,  Petre, 
quia  ter  respondes  amorem  ? Oblitus  est  trinum  timorem  ? Sine  interroget  te  Domi- 
nus:  medicus  est  qui  te  interrogat,  ad  sanitatem  pertinet,  quod  interrogat.  Noli 
tsedio  affici.  Expecta,  impleatur  numerus  dilectionis,  ut  deleat  numerum  negationis. 

| "W" etstein : Oves  istse  quo  tempore  Petro  committebantur,  erant  adhuc  teneri 
agni,  novitii  discipuli  a Petro  ex  Judseis  et  gentibus  adducendi.  Quando  vero  etiam 
oves  committit,  significat  eum  ad  senectutem  victurum,  et  ecclesiam  constitutam  et 
ordinatam  visurum  esse. 

% See  Bernard,  Be  Consid .,  1.  2,  c.  8. 


DEAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


371 


and  no  tolerable  ground  exists  for  calling  in  question  the  tradition  of 
the  Church,  that  such  was  the  manner  of  the  apostle’s  martyrdom.* * * § 
Doubtless  it  is  here  obscurely  intimated ; but  this  is  of  the  very  nature  of 
prophecy,  and  there  is  quite  enough  in  the  description  to  show  that 
the  Lord  had  this  and  no  other  manner  of  death  in  his  eye.  The 
stretched  forth  hands  are  the  hands  extended  upon  either  side  on  the 
transverse  bar  of  the  cross.  \ The  girding  by  another  is  the  binding  to 
the  cross,  for  tne  sufferer  was  attached  to  the  instrument  of  punishment 
not  only  with  nails,  but  also  was  bound  thereto  with  cords.J  It  cannot 
be  meant  by  the  bearing  “ whither  thou  wouldest  not ,”  that  there  should 
be  any  reluctancy  on  the  part  of  Peter  to  glorify  God  by  his  death, 
except  indeed  the  reluctancy  which  there  always  is  in  the  flesh  to  suf- 
fering and  pain ; which  yet  in  his  case,  as  in  the  Lord’s,  (compare  Matt, 
xxvi.  39,)  should  be  overruled  by  the  higher  willingness  to  do  and  to 
suffer  the  perfect  will  of  God.  In  this  sense,  as  it  was  a violent  death, 
— a death  which  others  chose  for  him, — a death  from  which  flesh  and 
blood  would  naturally  shrink,  it  was  “ whither  he  would  not though, 
in  a higher  sense,  as  it  was  the  way  to  a nearer  vision  of  God, "it  was 
that  at  which  he  had  all  his  life  been  aiming ; and  then  he  was  borne 
whither  most  he  would ; and  the  exulting  words  of  another  apostle,  at 
the  near  approach  of  his  martyrdom,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6 — 8,)  would  have 
suited  his  lips  just  as  well.§ 

* Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  1.  2,  c.  25 ; 1.  3,  c.  1. 

\ The  passages  most  to  the  point  in  showing  that  this  would  naturally  be  one  of 
the  images  which  one,  who,  without  naming,  yet  wished  to  indicate  crucifixion,  would 
use,  are  this  from  Seneca  ( Consol . ad  Mar  clam,  c.  201 : Video  istic  cruces  non  unius 
quidem  generis ; ....  alii  brachia  patibulo  explicuerunt ; and  Tertullian  (He  Pudic., 
c.  22) : In  patibulo  jam  co'rpore  expanso : who  says  again  with  allusion  to  the  stretch- 
ing out  of  the  hands  in  prayer ; Paratus  est  ad  omne  supplicium  ipse  habitus  orantis 
Christian!  And  the  following  phrase  occurs  in  Arrian’s  Epictetus,  1.  3,  c.  26 : 
EKTELvag  GEavrov,  <bg  oi  EoravpapEvoi.  The  passage  adduced  by  some  from  Plautus, 

Credo  ego  tibi  esse  eundum  extra  portam, 

Dispessis  manibus  patibuJum  quum  habebis, 

is  not  quite  satisfying ; since  this  is  most  probably  an  allusion  to  the  marching  the 
criminal  along,  with  his  arms  attached  to  th eforJc  upon  his  neck,  before  he  was  him- 
self fastened  to  the  cross  ; or  perhaps  not  to  be  followed  up  by  actual  execution  at 
all,  but  only  as  itself  an  ignominious  punishment.  (See  Becker’s  Gallus,  v.  1,  p. 
131,  and  Wetstein,  in  loc.) 

f;  So  Tertullian  (Scorp.,  c.  15):  Tunc  Petrus  ab  altero  cingitur,  cum  cruci 
astringitur ; or  perhaps  it  may  be,  as  Liicke  suggests,  the  girding  the  sufferer  round 
the  middle,  who  otherwise  would  be  wholly  naked  on  the  cross.  He  quotes  from 
the  Evany.  Nicod.,  c.  10 : ’E (jedvaav  oi  GrpaTiQrai  tov  ’It/govv  rd  iparia  avrov,  Kai 

TTEptE&GaV  aVTOV  A EVTLO. 

§ Chrysostom  ( In  Jok.,  Horn.  88) : "Orrov  ov  diXeig'  rijg  <j>vosog  My  el  to  avyKaOsg  koX 


372 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


Nor  may  we  exclude  the  symbolical  meaning,  which  we  have  found 
m the  earlier  parts  of  the  chapter,  from  this  part  also.  The  “ girding 
himself”  is  to  be  taken  as  the  sign  and  figure  of  promptness  and  an 
outward  activity,  (Exod.  xii.  11 ; Luke  xii.  35  ; 1 Pet.  i.  13 ; Ephes.  vi. 
14 ;)  and,  in  fact,  our  Lord  is  saying  to  Peter,  “When  thou  wert  young, 
thou  actedst  for  me,  thou  wentest  whither  thou  wouldest,  thou  wert 
free  to  work  for  me,  and  to  choose  thy  field  of  work ; but  when  thou 
art  old,  thou  shalt  learn  another  lesson,  a higher  and  a harder;  thou 
shalt  suffer  for  me ; thou  shalt  no  more  choose  thy  work,  but  others 
shall  choose  it  for  thee,  and  that  work  shall  be  the  work  of  passion 
rather  than  of  action.”  Such  is  the  history  of  the  Christian  life,  not  in 
Peter’s  case  only,  but  this  is  the  very  course  and  order  of  it  in  almost 
all  of  God’s  servants ; it  is  begun  in  action,  it  is  perfected  in  suffering. 
In  the  last,  lessons  are  learned  which  the  first  could  never  teach ; graces 
exercised,  which  but  for  this,  would  not  at  all,  or  would  only  have  very 
weakly,  existed. 

Thus  it  was,  for  instance,  with  a John  Baptist.  He  begins  with 
Jerusalem  and  all  Judea  flowing  to  him  to  listen  to  his  preaching;  he 
ends  with  lying  long,  a seemingly  forgotten  captive,  in  the  dungeon  of 
Machserus.  So  was  it  with  a St.  Chrysostom.  The  chief  cities  of  the 
world  wait  upon  him  with  reverence  and  homage  while  he  is  young, 
and  he  goes  whither  he  would ; but  when  he  is  old,  he  is  borne  whithei 
he  would  not,  up  and  down,  a sick  and  suffering  exile.  Thus  should 
it  be  also  with  this  great  apostle.  It  was  only  in  this  manner  that 
whatever  of  self-will  and  self-choosing  survived  in  him  still,  should  be 
broken  and  abolished,  that  he  should  be  brought  into  an  entire  empti- 
ness of  self,  a perfect  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 

And  then  the  Lord,  as  he  has  shown  him  the  end,  will  also  show 
him  the  way ; for  “ when  he  had  spoJcen  this,  he  saith  unto  him,  Follow 
me”  Now  these  words  do  more  than  merely  signify,  in  a general  way, 
“ Be  thou  an  imitator  of  me.”  Such  an  explanation  would  show  that 
we  had  altogether  failed  in  realizing  to  ourselves  this  solemn  scene,  as 
it  was  on  this  day  enacted  on  the  shore  of  Gennesaret.  That  scene 
was  quite  as  much  in  deed  as  in  word ; and  here,  at  the  very  moment 
that  the  Lord  spake  the  words,  it  would  seem  that  he  took  some  paces 
along  the  rough  and  rocky  shore,  bidding  Peter  to  do  the  same ; thus 
setting  forth  to  him  in  a figure  his  future  life,  which  should  be  a fol- 
lowing of  his  divine  Master  in  the  rude  and  rugged  way  of  Christian 

rrjg  oaptcog  rrjg  dvdyuriv,  real  otl  anovou  aTrofiftr/wrai  rov  adparog  r/ 1 pvxv-  Cf.  Augus 
tine’s  beautiful  words,  Serm.  299,  and  Serm.  173,  c.  2 : Quis  enim  vult  mori  ? Prorsus 
nemo : et  ita  nemo  ut  beato  Petro  diceretur,  Alter  te  cinget,  et  feret  quo  tu  non  via 


DEAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


373 


action.  That  all  this  was  not  so  much  spoken  as  done,  is  clear  from 
that  which  follows,  which  only  is  explicable  so.  Peter,  “ turning  about” 
— looking,  that  is,  behind  him, — “ seeth  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved;” 
— words  not  introduced  idly,  and  as  little  so  the  allusion  to  his  familia- 
rity at  the  Paschal  supper,  but  to  explain  the  boldness  of  John  in 
following  unbidden  him  he  seeth  “ following”  and  inquires,  “ Lord, 
what  shall  this  man  do?”  He  would  know  what  shall  be  his  lot,  and 
what  the  issue  of  his  earthly  conversation  : shall  he,  too,  follow  by  the 
same  rugged  path  h 

It  is  not  very  easy  to  determine  the  spirit  out  of  which  this  question 
proceeded.  Augustine  thinks  it  is  that  of  one  who  was  concerned  that 
his  friend  should  seem  to  be  left  out,  and  not  summoned  to  the  honor 
of  the  same  close  following  of  his  Lord.f  Others,  however,  have  often- 
times taken  this  question  in  quite  a different  sense ; that  it  is  a question 
put  more  in  the  temper  of  Martha,  when  she  said  to  the  Lord,  concerning 
her  sister  Mary,  “ Lord,  dost  thou  not  care  that  my  sister  hath  left  me 
to  serve  alone  V (Luke  x.  40,)  being  not  pleased  that  Mary  should  re- 
main quietly  sitting  at  Jesus’  feet,  while  she  was  engaged  in  active 
service  for  him.J  Certainly  the  rebuke  which  here,  as  there,  the 


* Bengel:  Ut  autem  in  ccena  ilia  ita  nunc  quoque  locum  quserebat,  et  se  fami- 
liariter  insinuabat,  propemodum  magis,  quam  Petrus  libenter  perferret. 

f Serm.  253,  c.  3 : Quomodo  ego  sequor  et  ipse  non  sequitur  ? This,  too,  is 
Chrysostom’s  explanation.  Jerome’s  (Adv.  Jovin.,  1.  1,  c.  26)  is  slightly  different : 
Nolens  deserere  Johannem,  cum  quo  semper  fuerat  copulatus.  In  later  times  it  was 
often  understoood,  as  that  in  Peter’s  words  spoke  out  the  jealousy  of  the  practical  life 
for  the  contemplative,  Martha's  dissatisfaction  with  Mary.  The  first  thinks  hardly  of 
the  other,  counts  it  to  be  a shunning  of  the  cross,  a shrinking  from  earnest  labor  in  tho 
Lord’s  cause, — would  fain  have  it  also  to  be  a martyr  not  merely  in  will,  but  in  deed. 
See  the  very  interesting  extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  Abbot  Joachim,  in  Neaxder’s 
Kirch.  Gesch.,  v.  5,  p.  440. 

\ It  is  partly  no  doubt  their  general  character,  as  developed  through  the  Gospel 
history,  but  mainly  this  passage,  which  has  caused  the  two  apostles,  St.  Peter  and  St. 
John,  to  be  accepted  in  the  Church  as  the  types,  one  of  Christian  action,  the  other  of 
Christian  contemplation ; one,  like  the  servants,  working  for  its  absent  Lord ; the 
other,  like  the  virgins,  waiting  for  him : the  office  of  the  first,  the  active  laboring  for 
Christ,  to  cease  and  pass  away,  because  the  time  would  arrive  when  there  should  be 
no  more  need  for  it ; but  of  the  other,  the  contemplation  of  God,  to  remain  (geveiv)  till 
the  Lord  came,  and  not  then  to  cease,  but  to  continue  for  evermore.  Thus  Augustine 
in  a noble,  passage,  of  which  I can  only  give  a fragment  or  two  (In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract. 
124) : Duas  itaque  vitas  sibi  divinitus  prsedicatas  et  commendatas  novit  Ecclesia, 
quarum  est  una  in  fide,  altera  in  specie ; una  in  tempore  peregrinationis,  altera  in 
seternitate  mansionis ; una  in  labore,  altera  in  requie ; una  in  via,  altera  in  patria  ; una 
in  opere  actionis,  altera  in  mercede  contemplationis ; . . . .una  bona  et  mala  discernit, 
altera  qua*  sola  bona  sunt,  cernit : ergo  una  bona  est,  sed  adhuc  misera,  altera  melior 


374 


THE  SECOND  MIRACULOUS 


question  calls  out,  implies  that  the  source  out  of  which  it  proceeded, 
whether  this  or  another,  was  not  altogether  pure.  Peter,  understanding 
well  what  that  “ Follow  me,”  addressed  to  himself,  meant,  may  have 
felt  a moment’s  jealousy  at  that  easier  portion  which  seemed  allotted  to 
his  fellow  apostle. 

This  was  most  likely  the  thought,  and  then  the  rebuke  exactly  meets 
it.  Peter  had  perceived  what  the  leaving  John,  and  bidding  him  to 
follow,  implied.  John  was  to  “ tarry”  doing  a still  work  in  the  Church; 
the  rougher  paths  were  not  for  his  treading,  but  rather  he  was  to  be 
perfected  by  another  discipline ; not  borne  away  from  the  earth  in  the 
fire-chariot  of  a painful  martrydom,  but,  tarrying  long,  he  should  crown 
a peaceful  and  honored  old  age  by  a natural  death.  It  was  not,  in- 
deed, that  he,  or  any  other  saint,  should  escape  his  share  of  worldly 
tribulation,  or  that  the  way  for  him,  or  for  any,  should  be  other  than 
a straight  way.  Yet  do  we  see  daily  how  the  sufferings  of  different 
members  of  the  kingdom  are  allotted  in  very  different  proportions  ; with 
some,  they  are  comparatively  few  and  far  between,  while  for  others, 
their  whole  life  seems  a constant  falling  from  one  trial  to  another.  And 
our  Lord’s  answer  to  Peter’s  speech  is  in  fact  this  : “ Hast  thou  a right 
to  complain,  if  it  be  thus  'l  What  is  it  to  thee  how  I apportion  the 
lots  of  my  other  servants  ? Nay,  if  I were  to  will  that  he  should  never 
see  death — that  he  should  altogether  escape  that  narrow  and  painful 
passage  into  life,  and  tarry*  till  my  coming  again,  what  would  that  be 
to  thee  ? Do  thou  thine  allotted  task  ; follow  thou  me”  f 

St.  John  mentions  by  the  way  how  these  words  of  his  Lord  were 
misunderstood  by  some,  who  had  from  thence  assumed  that  he  was 
never  to  die,  but  to  continue  among  the  living  until  the  time  of  Christ’s 
return ; an  interpretation  which  he  anxiously  disclaims,  showing  that 


et  beata.  Ista  significata  est  per  Apostolum  Petrum,  ilia  per  Johannem.  Tota  hie 
agitur  ista  usque  in  hujus  seculi  finem,  et  illic  invenit  finem : differtur  ilia  complenda 
post  hujus  seculi  finem,  sed  in  futuro  seculo  non  habet  finem.  Ideo  dicitur  huic, 
Sequere  me  : de  illo  autem,  Sic  eum  volo  manere  donee  veniam,  quid  ad  te  ? Tu  me 
sequere  ....  Quod  apertius  ita  dici  potest,  Perfecta  mfe  sequatur  actio,  informata 
mese  passionis  exemplo ; inchoata  vero  contemplatio  maneat  donee  venio,  perficienda 
cum  venero.  This  view  remarkably  re-appeared  in  the  twelfth  century  in  connection 
with  the  Evangelium  Eternum.  (Neander’s  Kirch.  Gesch.,  v.  5,  p.  440,  seq.) 

* For  the  same  use  of  //.rjvetv , see  1 Cor.  xv.  6. 

1 See  a sermon  by  St.  Bernard  ( In  Nativ.  SS.  Innocent .,  c.  1) : Et  bibit  ergo 
Johannes  calicem  salutaris,  et  secutus  est  Dominum,  sicut  Petrus,  etsi  non  omni  modo 
6icut  Petrus.  Quod  enim  sic  mansit  ut  non  etiam  passione  corporea  Dominum  seque- 
retur,  diviui  fecit  consilii ; sicut  ipse  ait,  Sic  eum  volo  manere,  donee  veniam.  Ac  si 
dicat : Yult  quidem  et  ipse  sequi,  sed  ego  sic  eum  volo  manere. 


DK  AUGHT  OF  FISHES. 


375 


the  words  conveyed  no  such  meaning,  and  that  only  through  an  inaccu- 
rate report  of  them,  or  a laying  upon  them  of  a meaning  far  greater 
than  they  themselves  would  justify,  could  they  be  made  to  convey  any 
such  impression : “ Jesus  said  not  unto  him , He  shall  not  die,  but,  If  I 
will  that  he  tarry  till  I come,  what  is  that  to  thee?”  Yet  this  explicit  de- 
claration that  no  such  meaning  lay  in  the  words,  was  not  sufficient  to 
extinguish  altogether  such  a belief  or  superstition  in  the  Church.  We 
find  many  traces  of  it  at  many  times ; even  his  death  and  burial,  which 
men  were  compelled  to  acknowledge,  were  not  sufficient  to  abolish  it. 
For  his  death,  men  said,  was  not  really  death,  but  only  the  appearance 
of  death,  and  yet  he  breathed  in  his  grave ; so  that  even  an  Augustine 
was  unable  wholly  to  resist  the  reports  which  had  reached  him,  that  the 
earth  yet  heaved  over  the  apostle’s  grave,  and  the  dust  was  lightly  stirred 
by  the  regular  pulses  of  his  breath.*  The  fable  of  his  still  living  Augus- 
tine at  once  rejects,  but  is  more  patient  with  this  report  than  one  would 
have  looked  for,  counting  it  possible  that  a permanent  miracle  might 
there  be  finding  place. f 

* In  Ev.  Joh.,  Tract  124 : Cum  mortuus  putaretur,  sepultum  fuisse  dormientem, 
et  donee  Christus  veniat  sic  manere,  suamque  vitam  scaturigine  pulveris  indicare  : 
qui  pulvis  creditor,  ut  ab  imo  ad  superficiem  tumuli  ascendat,  flatu  quiescentis  im- 
pelli.  Huic  opinioni  supervacaneum  existimo  reluctari.  Viderint  enim  qui  locum 
sciunt,  utrum  hoc  ibi  faciat  vel  patiatur  terra,  quod  dicitur  ; quia  et  revera  non  a 
levibus  hominibus  id  audivimus. 

j-  See  Tertullian,  Be  Animd,  c.  50 ; Hilary,  Be  Trinit.,  1.  6,  c.  39 ; Ambrose, 
Exp.  in  Fs.  cxviii.  Serm.  18,  c.  12 ; Jerome,  Adv.  Jovin.,  1.  1,  c.  26  ; Meander’s 
Kirch..  Gesch.,  v.  5,  p.  1117.  This  superstition  aided  much  the  wide-spread  faith  of 
the  middle  ages,  in  the  existence  of  Prester  John  in  further  Asia.  Even  as  late  as 
the  sixteenth  century  an  impostor  was  burnt  at  Toulouse,  who  gave  himself  out  as 
St.  John ; and.  in  England  some  of  the  fanatical  sects  of  the  Commonwealth  were 
looking  for  his  return  to  revive  and  reform  the  Church. — The  erroneous  reading  Sic 
[for  Si]  eum  volo  manere,  which  early  found  its  way  into  the  Latin  copies,  and  which 
the  Yulgate,  with  the  obstinate  persistence  of  the  Eomish  Church  in  a once  admitted 
error,  still  retains,  must  have  helped  on  the  mistake  concerning  the  meaning  of  Christ’s 
words. 


THE  END. 


% 


■ 


' 


* . 


■ 


i 


4 


